| |
Slaughter of the Innocent
Jenny Marsh—06/2004 |
| |
This is Dr. Janet Smith. She is a consultant
oncologist at a hospital near you. She looks harmless
enough… even respectable… but don't
be fooled. She is in fact a mass murderer, but
even she doesn't know it. Approach her with EXTREME
caution. |
| |
| * * * |
| |
 NE
DAY, not so far in the future, people will look back to
these times with incredulity at how a society that
presumed itself civilized could annually murder millions
of its citizens for profit. And they will marvel at
how these citizens would unquestioningly join the queues
for the slaughter houses, meekly laying down their
live — just as they had done less than a century
before in two terrible world wars. |
| |
| Of course, it is easy to be wise in hindsight, and
those future generations will no doubt quickly realize
that although it was always our choice to visit the
slaughter houses, we were under the influence of heavy
propaganda from the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical
industry that did everything they could to instill
into each one of us that the slaughter houses are necessary
to counter the relatively recent cancer (and other
degenerative diseases) epidemic. |
| |
| Cancer rates, as well as many other degenerative
diseases, exploded in the latter half of the 20th century
because of the massive levels of deadly chemicals or
carcinogenic compounds that humanity insisted and continues
to insist on pumping into the environment for the sake
of maximizing commercial profit - in fact over 60,000
toxins since World War II. Couple that with the fact
that the average diet is woefully inadequate at offering
any kind of nutritional protection from these toxins
and you have a recipe for biological disaster. And
this is exactly what has happened. Today, one in two
of us will get cancer at some time in our lives whereas
it was one in five only a few decades ago. This year
alone 1.5 million Americans and 2 million Europeans
will be diagnosed with cancer. And 750,000 will die
this year alone in the US from this disease. (Isn't
it ironic how shocked and outraged the US public are
when just a few hundred Americans die in Iraq or a
few thousand on 9/11… but three quarters of a
million… every year… and there is hardly
a squeak of protest.) |
| |
| The response by our governments to this epidemic
was to declare "war on cancer" back in the
1970s. Trillions has been spent on research and treatment
and finding a cure since then, and yet, not only has
this "war" been ineffective at reducing mortality,
cancer rates overall are rapidly rising. Hodgkin's
disease, acute lymphocytic leukaemia and some less
common cancers have been treated with moderate success
with orthodox treatments like chemo"therapy" (8%
of children with leukaemia, for example, now live but
are likely to get another form of cancer later in life),
but for most of the common solid tumours, modern cancer
diagnosis, screening and treatments are ineffective.
(Screening can even increase the chance of cancer because
X-rays themselves are believed to be the third largest
cause of cancer.) |
 |
| In fact, Dr. Karl Horst Poehlmann says, somewhat
tongue-in-cheek, that chemo"therapy" is the
only orthodox treatment that has been shown to be 100%
statistically useless in all proper trials (read Ulrich
Abel's excellent book Chemotherapy of Advanced Cancer).
Chemo is unhelpful for 97% of cancers. And even when
a patient's tumour does respond well (i.e., the tumours
shrink fast under treatment) that patient has been
shown to live no longer than someone whose tumour did
not respond. And yet, most would never realize these
facts with the deceptive manner in which the medical
establishment and the pharmaceutical industry present
the statistics. You would think the war on cancer was
being won the way they carry on! Orthodox cancer treatments
rely on 3 main methods - chemo, surgery and radiation
(so called poison, slash and burn) - and even though
surgery is regarded as the most successful of the three
it too can actually cause cancer because it stimulates
angiogenesis - the new blood vessel growth that tumours
thrive on. Even taking a biopsy can cause cancer in
a sixth of patients because it effectively spreads
the cancer cells by breaking the tumours' protein encapsulation. |
| |
| Just the other day here in London, Cancer Research
was doing a poster campaign which stated that more
people are hearing the words "all clear" than
ever before. The implication is that cancer research
is successfully reducing cancer rates. But wait a minute:
if cancer rates are increasing then more people may
well be receiving the all clear even though more people
are dying from it as well. And one must also factor
in that early cancer treatment will invariably widen
the net to include cases which are questionably cancer
in the first place, making treatment all the more successful
and allowing the medical establishment to take credit
for more "all clears". (Yet another consideration
is that those diagnosed early are more likely to undergo
complementary treatments, considerably raising their
survival chances.) So Cancer Research's advertising
campaign is deceptive - an underhanded attempt to raise
more money for orthodox research against a backdrop
of almost total failure. |
|
| Many studies and meta studies (studies of studies)
show just how ineffective orthodox cancer treatments
are (and often how they are not only ineffective but
make matters a lot worse, decreasing survival chances).
Their aggressive approach temporarily kills many cancer
cells, and sometimes that is occasionally necessary
for fast growing tumours, but most would agree that
a true measure of a treatments success is survival
probability after a five year period, as well as quality
of life. What is the point of extending a person's
life by a few months if those few months they are spent
in terrible suffering from the side-effects? What usually
happens is that the treatment kills 90% of the cancer
cells but leaves the 10% that are more resistant to
treatment and more aggressive to proliferate afterwards
with fewer constraints because the immune system was
shot to pieces in the process. In the words of Ulrich
Abel, a German biostatistician, "Many oncologists
take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs
survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and
which is not supported by clinical studies." Taking
comfort in a shrinking tumour at the cost of serious
and often fatal destruction to the body and its immune
system is insanity. If treatments do not increase long-term
survival then why undertake them, especially as they
have such awful side-effects? |
| |
| A few years back Ralph Moss, the author of Questioning
Chemotherapy, gave a lecture in London in which he
stated that his studies on the effectiveness of chemo"therapy" came
up with the overall success rate of only 7%. A newer 2004 study by two oncologists in Australia, however, published in Clinical Oncology 2004 16:549-60 reveiled that chemo improves survival by only 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. [The methodology of this study was criticised however by a leading oncologist who said that the actual figure was as high as 5 or 6%!] Other
researchers like Ulrich Abel would put the figure lower
than that. Dr. Pfeifer, for example, has stated that
once a cancer has metastasized, chemotherapy is only
of long-term survival benefit to 2% of cases! (As almost
all chemo"therapies" have never been through
proper double blind trials on humans for ethical reasons,
this may be entirely a placebo effect, or the placebo
effect is much higher and chemo is worse than useless.) |
| |
| The generous 7% average success rate that Ralf Moss has come
up with for chemo"therapy" does not reflect
the greater successes of this treatment with blood cancers
(especially in children — although it has to be said that there is a large chance that the cancer will reoccur when the child is an adult), but if any alternative or
complimentary treatment showed a similar level of overall "success",
the medical establishment would rise up in outrage
and get such a dismal and barbaric therapy banned immediately
and those who administered it prosecuted. But this
is not going to happen to an establishment protected
by a rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry which
makes billions in profit each year from these "treatments".
(A few years back single course of Taxol costs £10,000… it
is probably more now.) |
| |
| Walter Last in his excellent article "How Scientific
Are Orthodox Cancer Treatments?" published recently
in Nexus Magazine states, "An investigation of
the records of 1.2 million cancer patients [published
in 2002 by J. Nat. Cancer Inst.] revealed that the
death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after
treatment was 200% higher than would normally be expected.
Two years after diagnosis and treatment, this excessive
date rate had fallen to 50%… This means that,
instead of dying several years later from cancer, these
patients died from the effects of treatment." He
goes on to report that because they strictly died of
treatment rather than cancer per se, these
deaths actually helped to improve the cancer statistics. |
|
| Of course, "death by doctors" is nothing
new and is rife in modern health "care". Null
and Dean reported astonishing figures in their paper "Death
by Medicine" published in the Nutritional Institute
of America in November 2003. They showed that in 2001
the number of deaths attributable to medical interventions
in the US was a staggering 783,936, whilst that for
heart disease was 699,697, and that for cancer, 553,251.
Dr. Vernon Coleman, an experienced doctor comments
in his book, Betrayal of Trust, that one in six British
hospital patients are in hospital because they have
been made ill by their doctor. He also outlined a study
in Australia that showed 470,000 men, women and children
are admitted to hospital because they have been made
ill by their doctors. In America, 200,000 people die
each year as a result of medical accidents. |
| |
| Coleman illustrates these worrying statistics by
the fact that when doctors in Israel went on strike
for a month in 1973, admissions to hospitals fell by
85%, and the overall death rate in Israel dropped by
50%. The same thing happened in Colombia in 1976 where
a 52 day doctor's strike resulted in an 18% reduction
in the death rate and 60% fewer operations. And when
physicians went on strike in the United Kingdom for
a month in 1978, deaths dropped by 40%. When all these
striking doctors returned to work, the death rate rose
again to its pre-strike level. Of course the doctors
were embarrassed by these statistics and tried to deny
them. (A very well-read naturopathic doctor told me
that this reduction of the death rate during a doctor's
strike also occured in Italy, although I can't confirm
this one.) |
| |
| The truth is that orthodox medicine is relatively
ineffective for many health problems, and patients
would be much better off making lifestyle changes and
seeking alternative treatments. In his book, How to
Live Longer, Coleman gives a rating out of 10 for orthodox
treatments, alternative treatments and self-help/lifestyle
changes in both prevention and treatment for many of
our most common ailments. Coleman admits that these
figures are somewhat subjective but has tried to tie
them in with the evidence available. For the prevention
of anxiety and depression he give orthodox medicine
0 out of 10; alternative medicine 4 out of 10; and
self-help 7 out of 10. For treatment of anxiety and
depression he gives orthodox medicine 3 out of 10,
alternative practitioners 8/10, and self-help 8/10.
For the prevention of arthritis the figures are 0:6:6;
treatment of arthritis 5:6:7. Asthma prevention - 1:6:6.
Asthma treatment - 5:6:6. Cancer prevention - 0:8:9.
Cancer treatment - 1:8:8. Eczema / Dermatitis prevention
- 0:0:6. Eczema / Dermatitis treatment - 5:8:8. Headache
/ Migraine prevention - 1:6:7. Headache / Migraine
treatment - 3:6:9. Heart Disease prevention - 2:6:9.
Heart Disease treatment - 2:5:8. High blood pressure
prevention - 0:4:9. High blood pressure treatment -
3:5:8. Irritable Bowel Syndrome prevention - 1:3:8.
IBS treatment - 2:2:8. Osteoporosis prevention - 0:0:9.
Treatment - 0:0:9. In other words, modern orthodox
medicine is disastrous for preventing disease and not
much better at treating it. |
|
| Walter Last references Hildenbrand's paper, "Five-year
survival rates of melanoma patients treated by diet
therapy after the manner of Gerson: A retrospective
review", in which he compares the success of the
Gerson diet against conventional treatments for treating
a sample of 153 melanoma. For Stage I and II, 100%
of those on Gerson therapy survived, whereas only 79%
of those on conventional treatments survived. With
Stage III, the figures are 70% and 41% respectively.
And with Stage IVa they are 39% and 6%. He goes on
to say that "Many natural cancer therapists claim
a success rate of more than 90% in arresting and reversing
cancer, provided that patients have not been subject
to orthodox treatments beforehand. The most damaging
treatments appear to be chemotherapy and radiotherapy." And
yet Gerson, with it relatively good track record, is
continually maligned by orthodox doctors. |
| |
| In addition to being relatively ineffective,
there are also huge levels of incompetence in orthodox
diagnosis. Coleman reports that "a report published
after pathologists had performed 400 post mortem examinations
showed that in more than half the cases the wrong diagnosis
had been made." He goes on to write that in a study
of 131 randomly selected psychiatric patients, three
quarters may have been wrongly diagnosed; and when
researchers examined the medical records of 100 dead
patients which post-mortems had identified as heart
attack victims, only 53% had been diagnosed correctly,
despite the fact that half that patients were seeing
cardiologists (not just normal doctors but experts in
heart disease). The list goes on and on, and Coleman
gives the reason for this unacceptable failure rate
as the "lamentable education" that modern medical
students are receiving, and their reliance on technological
gadgetry and drug solutions. |
| |
| Bryan Hubbard tells us in his excellent
book, Secrets of the Drug Industry, that at least 106,000
Americans die every year as a result of some adverse
reaction to "correctly" prescribed drugs, and
that a further 7000 die from incorrectly prescribed
drugs. In the UK, 40,000 die every year as a result
of reactions to prescription drugs, and a further 150,000
are disabled or need hospital treatment after taking
a drug. He also reports how another study found that
2,216,000 Americans are permanently disabled or spend
time in hospital as a direct result of prescription
drugs. And considering that doctors are reluctant to
report adverse reactions to orthodox drugs, these deplorable
figures are no doubt an underestimation. |
|
| In fact, even the pharmaceutical industry
itself admits that drugs are largely ineffective. Dr.
Allen Roses, worldwide Vice President of Genetics at
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and a pre-eminent figure in the
field, stated in 2003 that more than 90% of drugs work
in only 30-50% of people. Whilst this may seem a shocking
admission by an industry insider and expert, and whilst
it is no doubt a conservative overestimation of the
benefit of drugs, he does not even mention what negative
impact these "ineffective" drugs are having.
So doctors have been subscribing ineffective drugs
for most of their patients! Recently, even Hormone
Replacement Therapy (HRT) was found to cause cancer,
heart disease, strokes and dementia. And this was after
it was lauded to not only be the answer to menopause
but "proven" safe and effective by "medical
research". (Did doctors apologize for so arduously
promoting HRT and no doubt killing many women in the
process? Of course not… it is just business as
usual with the next wonder drug.) |
| |
| Walter Last attributes these shocking
figures to the fact that orthodox medicine is largely
unscientific. He quotes Richard Smith in the British
Medical Journal as saying, "… only 15% of
medical interventions are supported by solid scientific
evidence" and "This is because only 1% of the
articles in medical journals are scientifically sound,
and partly because many treatments have never been
assessed at all." This is especially relevant to
cancer treatments where there is the added problem
of the ethics of double blind trials. One percent scientifically
sound?!! Can you believe that… and we all thought
that orthodox medicine, which wastes no opportunity
to denounce unorthodox medicine as unscientific, was
based on careful research and clinical studies. And
this was reported in a prestigious orthodox journal! |
| |
| If orthodox treatments are so ineffective
and dangerous, why is it then that they continue to
be used? The reason for this is that they are completely
funded, backed, controlled and supported by the massive
pharmaceutical industry which makes billions of dollars
profit from peddling them. This industry has the clout
to influence doctors through training school and in
general practice — usually with free gifts, grants,
sponsorship, drug rebates and high salaries (more accurately
called bribes) — loading them up with pro-drug
and pro-orthodox treatment propaganda until they become
its sales agents. |
| |
| Not only does the industry influence
doctors, it naturally influences the research that
they do. Money takes much of the objectivity out of
clinical research, a fact recently reported by New
Scientist. Research funded by the pharmaceutical industry
(as the majority now is) is far more likely to produce
favourable results than independent research. When
Oxford University academic An-Wen Chan recently analysed
102 clinical trials, he found that researchers changed
the primary outcomes in their published reports in
62% of the cases. In other words they modified the
results to please their sponsor. Researchers are not
necessarily being dishonest; it is just that human
beings have a natural and mostly unconscious urge to
please their paymasters. And it is well documented
that research showing negative results is much more
likely to be buried by the sponsor, so that the public
and doctors remain unaware of potential drug dangers. |
|
| What is most worrying, however, is that
the pharmaceutical industry is sowing up its monopoly
on health"care" in the legal system. By lobbying
governments (in the US alone the industry has 7 full-time
lobbyists for every member of congress) and using its
financial clout to warp the processes of democracy,
it has managed to severely restrict safer and more
effective alternative treatments — treatments
that are undoubtedly more successful than the pharmaceutical
ones. It is even working on outlawing the majority
of vitamin, mineral and other natural supplements,
reducing maximum doses to ineffective levels. This
is already scheduled to come into effect in the EU
in April 2005. For example, Brussels has dictated (there
is no other word for it because it was certainly not
a democratic decision) that it will be illegal to sell
Vitamin C in strengths over 200mg… why?… well
high dose Vitamin C (several grams a day) is vital
for optimum health, and most alternative cancer regimes
include high quantities of this vitamin because it
significantly increases survival. In other words, something
as innocuous as Vitamin C is in direct competition
with drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry, like all
big business, likes to protect its profits. Healthy
people are bad for business! |
| |
| The approach the pharmaceutical PR machine uses to
denigrate natural health supplements is safety. Every
few weeks there seems to be another major piece in
a national newspaper and on television warning the
public of the dangers of vitamin and mineral supplements.
Yet, in the US, the place where the public take the
most health supplements, the number of deaths attributed
to health supplements in 2001 was 16 against the 106,000
people killed by correctly prescribed pharmaceutical
drugs. (Click
here for a safety comparison graph.) Medicines
are therefore equivalent to 35 x 9/11 attacks every
year, or 212 jumbo jet crashes every year in terms
of fatalities. This should be front page headlines… and
yet, all the media seem to do is to obediently focus
their attention on how dangerous natural supplements
are instead. But as prescription drugs are nearly 7000
times more dangerous than natural health supplements,
clearly the drug company's massive PR campaigns are
working well (which isn't surprising considering their
multi-million dollar budgets and their media contacts).
Money talks. |
| |
| The pharmaceutical industry is the most
profitable industry sector in the world with the top
20 drug companies making sales of $200 billion in 2000
with an average growth of 11 per cent. Even during
world economic recessions, this industry still manages
to make "healthy" profits. Hubbard reports
that the top ten drug companies made a return of 18.5
cents for every $1 in sales - which is eight times
higher than the combined return of every other sector.
GlaxoSmithKline, the second largest in the world, alone
made a 31 per cent return on $20.5 billion sales. |
| |
| Only the very naïve would believe
that corporations would put the interests of their
customers before the interest of their profits. The
two are not the same: the true interest of the customer
is to actually take as few drugs as possible, and to
make lifestyle changes instead. The pharmaceutical
industry knows this, which is why it does everything
it can to brainwash new doctors into its drug paradigm.
If much of the information a doctor receives is drug-focused
pharmaceutical propaganda, is it really so surprising
that drugs are so dangerously over prescribed? (In
recent UK survey, which was reported on national television,
8 out of 10 doctors admitted to over prescribing tranquillisers.
And that is just the ones that admit it.) |
|
| With such huge levels of money underpinning
it, the medical establishment (or "medical inquisition" as
some accurately call it) maintains a ruthless stranglehold
on healthcare. And it is ruthless. What would a profession
directly responsible for millions of deaths around
the world care about the reputation of honest and caring
alternative doctors and practitioners, and the standing
of treatments that directly challenge its authority
and profits because they are unquestionably more effective?
Alternative doctors have been hounded to death and
imprisoned, just because they represented a threat
to the medical establishment's authority and profits.
You just have to read books like Dirty Medicine by
Martin Walker (banned in many countries and forcibly
out of print) to see how this industry works. It is
vicious, uncaring, murderous, vindictive and cruel.
Anyone who believes that the medical industry ("healthcare"!),
and the pharmaceutical giants that underpin and protect
it, care one iota for our health and wellbeing is living
in cloud-cookoo-land along with the rest of the Flat
Earth Society. |
| |
| So the bottom line is that orthodox doctors can unquestionably
be bad for your health. The modern medical establishment
has been completely infiltrated by the pharmaceutical
industry with the result that doctors and consultants
peddle dangerous, expensive and ineffective treatments
that serve only to line the pockets of the pharmaceutical
companies. So the next time anybody rubbishes alternative
treatments on grounds (usually but not always false)
of being unscientific, expensive, dangerous and misleading,
remember that orthodox medicine is orders of magnitude
more unscientific, more expensive, more dangerous and
more misleading. The difference is that the medical
mafia which controls orthodox medicine have legal and
government protection, making them completely unaccountable
for their terrible crimes. (That is how millions of
people can be legally murdered without a single perpetrator
brought to justice.) |
| |
| However, If just one person is inadvertently injured
by an alternative treatment, no matter how beneficial
that treatment is overall, no matter how many lives
it can potentially save, all hell breaks loose… the
treatment is severely controlled or banned, those responsible
are publicly taken to court with great fanfare, the
massive anti-alternative PR campaigns step up, and
the whole of alternative medicine is systematically
denigrated… such is the manner by which the medical
establishment maintains its monopoly and spins its
propaganda. The pharmaceutical industry donates huge
amounts of money to ongoing disinformation and propaganda
campaigns waged against the public mind (as well as
the medical profession) in order to maintain the lie
that alternative medicine is quackery and that drugs
offer the best solution. The lie is repeated over and
over, until most of the public and journalists blindly
accept it as self-evident, even though the term "quackery" is
by definition more appropriate a label for most of
orthodox medicine itself. This is the madness in which
those of us who know the game struggle to eke out as
healthy a life as we are able, all the while defending
our diminishing territory of health freedom from a
massive corporate and legal onslaught that demands
to see us sick and dying so that it can rob us blind
of every last cent. |
| |
| And if you think this article is biased… you
are right… it is strongly biased towards health
and life based on rational enquiry. So my advice to
you when you are unwell and needing medical intervention,
especially if you have a degenerative disease like
cancer or heart disease, is to do your homework - check
out just how successful orthodox medical procedures
and drugs really are, make those lifestyle changes,
and seriously consider alternative treatments. Otherwise,
by blindly accepting any orthodox medical treatment
going, perhaps because you have been frightened by
your doctor into believing that it is the only viable
option, you may find yourself meekly and obediently
queuing up outside a slaughter house. |
|
| * * * |
| |
| Dr. Janet Smith, therefore, really is much
more dangerous than she looks. In fact, for someone
her age and with her professional experience, she
has probably colluded in the murder of thousands
of innocent lives. What makes this particularly difficult
for many to accept is that she might really be a
kind and considerate human being… although
dangerously misguided. Janet unquestionably believes
that she is doing good; she originally became a doctor
because she wanted to help, and an oncologist, because
she wanted to cure cancer. But unfortunately she
has chosen to be indoctrinated into a narrow disease-centric
paradigm, one that supports only the pharmaceutical
industry's profits and the authority of orthodox
medicine. She has forgotten her raison d'etre -
to heal… to make whole… to put her patient's
health above any medical ideology. And in forgetting
that she is supposed to be a healer first and foremost,
and for being closed to alternatives which are clearly
in her patients' interest, she is guilty of gross
negligence and professional misconduct. |
| |
Nearly all the statistics and points raised
in this article originated from the medical establishment
itself, based on bona fide scientific enquiry,
and many of them have been reported in leading orthodox
journals. Can Janet plead ignorance to these facts
because she was too busy to read the journals… too
busy to question the "treatments" she so
freely doles out? Or will history judge her as an
accomplice in in the slaughter of the innocent? Time
will tell.  |
| |
| |
| Addendum - 27 Jun 04: Doctors.net.uk
has just released the results of a survey of 2500 UK
doctors in which 82% admitted to seeing a colleague
make a mistake or give sub-optimal care. And of those
incidents that could have led to death and disability,
only 15% were reported. This means that a staggering
85% of serious doctor blunders is never reported, and
so the public blissfully continues to regard the orthodox
medical profession as "health carers". |
| |
| This
article is for interest only. If you are unwell or
have a medical condition, please seek professional
medical advice. |
|
|
 |
| |
| Jenny Marsh is a writer, activist and dreamer living in London. As she keeps a low profile, those wanting to contact her should do so through the editor. |
|
