Part Eight –
THE AUTHORIZED TREATMENTS
Since this book is primarily written to medical researchers, it is well to clarify an- other reason for the great urgency in your conducting cancer research. The avenues for treatment, at present, are not good!
In this brief chapter, it will be shown that, un- fortunately, even the officially authorized (often re- ferred to as the “orthodox”) treatments for cancer are themselves seriously flawed!
able modern curative methods (surgery or ra- diation) would thereby be delayed potentially until such time as metastasis had occurred and the cancer therefore might no longer be cur- able.”—California State Health and Safety Code, Section 10400.1.
Thus the orthodox methods are said to offer “cure,” and the only source available for it. Let us now consider each of the three officially approved methods of treatment:
Medical researchers, we need your help, in developing—and convincing—the medical es- tablishment in America to use better methods of dealing with this most terrible of diseases!
Celsus, in the 1st century A.D., described a surgery for cancer of the lip. A century later, Leonidese also wrote about cancer surgery.
It is frequently said that the orthodox cancer treatments are “cures.” In the American Cancer Society’s book, Unproven Methods of Cancer Man- agement, updated periodically, the reader is told: “Unfortunately, many patients with curable cancer leave the care of competent physicians to be treated with a worthless unproven rem- edy until a cure by accepted methods of treat- ment becomes impossible.”—American Cancer Society, Unproven Methods of Cancer Manage- ment, 1971 Edition, 1.
In an ACS brochure, the following statement appears: “Why not use an unproven method if it has been proven to be harmless? —Because time is cancer’s ally. Any time wasted on worthless un- proven remedies may prevent a patient from obtaining proven treatment while his cancer is still curable.”—American Cancer Society, Can- cer.
This concept is written into the lawbooks of California: “The use of [laetrile] in early cancer to the exclusion of conventional treatment with accept-
In the 14th century, Guy de Chauliac described a wide variety of cancer operations; and, two cen- turies later, Hildanus discussed the first axillary dissection for breast cancer. In 1891, Halsted de- tailed the first radical operation for breast cancer. His basic procedures are still in use.
The following statement appeared in an im- portant Eastern scientific journal:
“Ten of our patients underwent an unsuccess- ful attempt by a surgeon to remove the tumor. All surgeons know that this procedure is usu- ally followed by an increased growth of the tumor . .
“Although the most common factor related to spontaneous regression in our monograph was excision [removal] of the primary [tumor], I cannot attach much importance to it because metastasis develops so commonly after exci- sion of the primary.”—“Spontaneous Regres- sion of Cancer: The Metabolic Triumph of the Host?” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 136-137 [emphasis ours].
“Metastasis” does have significant risks, be- cause it requires cutting through the protec- tive wall keeping the cancer bottled up. When