Alternate Cancer Remedies
it is cut open (by the surgery), the cancer is likely to leaves its pocket (the tumor)—and be- gin quickly spreading through the bloodstream to other parts of the body.
The same article noted that the statistical rate of “spontaneous regression” following surgery is 1 in 80,000 to 100,000 cases (op. cit., 111-112). Spontaneous regression occurs when the cancer subsequently disappears entirely from the body, for reasons which orthodox medicine says are un- known.
sis.”—F.R.C. Johnstone, M.D., California Medi- cal Digest, August 1972, 838.
In addition, the operation caused a large wound, which the already greatly weakened body must try to heal.
Excluding skin cancers, according to ACS data, the statistical average is that the rate of long-term survival after surgery is only 10-15%. Once the cancer has metastasized to a second lo- cation, the cancer is in the bloodstream, and sur- gery has almost no survival value.
The first statistical analysis of the survival rate after cancer surgery was done by Dr. Leroy d’Etoilles in 1844 and published by the French Academy of Science. Case histories of 2,781 patients (cover- ing a 36-year period) were submitted by 174 phy- sicians. The average survival was only one year and five months—about what the average is to- day.
“The net value of surgery or caustics was, in prolonging life, two months for men and six months for women. But that was only in the first few years after the initial diagnosis. After that period, those who had not accepted treat- ment had the greater survival potential by about fifty percent.”—Walter H. Walshe, The Ana- tomy, Physiology, Pathology and Treatment of Cance , Boston, 1844 [emphasis ours]. But what is the survival rate today? In 1961, a large-scale controlled study was begun, to see if all the surgery was worthwhile. (By that time, not only the tumor was removed, but frequently the entire breast and lymph nodes, and often the ova- ries also.)
Results of the 7½-year study were conclu- sive: Difference in the percentage of patients remaining alive mattered little whether they re- ceived a cancer operation—or no operation or other treatment at all! (R.G. Ravdin, et. al., “Re- sults of a Clinical Trial Concerning the Worth of Prophylactic Oophorectomy for Breast Carci- noma,” Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, De- cember 1970.)
A key factor here is that operations tend to open up the cancer, so it can begin to spread (me- tastasize) to other parts of the body. When can- cers begin spreading to secondary locations in the body, the odds drop practically to zero, that the patient will survive. Johnstone says that, once metastasis occurs, the situation is almost out of control, as far as orthodox remedies are concerned.
Before leaving this subject of cutting into cancer tissue, we should consider biopsies.
Generally the first thing the physician wants to do, when a patient inquires whether he might have cancer, is to cut into the questionable tis- sue—in order to extract a small slice for micro- scopic examination. But this procedure is highly dangerous, for it tends to spread the cancer. Even massaging a tumor is dangerous! “Massage of a tumor is followed by massively increased numbers of circulating tumor cells in the blood stream . . Experimental data fur- ther suggest that surgical truama decreases natural host [body] resistance to the formation of metastasis . .
“Needle biopsy is occasionally used, [but] . . a needle track may harbor nests of cells which may form the basis for a later recurrent spread.
“Incisional biopsy of certain highly malignant tumors through an open operative field may be contraindicated because of risk of spread of the tumor throughout the operative field.”—ACS and University of Rocheste , Clinical Oncology for Medical Students and Physicians, 3rd ed., 32, 34.
X-rays were first aimed at cancerous tumors in 1899. The first shipment of radium to the United States (1903) was given to the New York Academy of Medicine for the treatment of cancer. More re- cently, cobalt machines and proton accelerators were developed.
But the principle underlying them all is the same as for surgery: While surgery cuts the tu- mor away, the radiation burns it away. It is, in effect, a radioactive knife, cutting into the tu- mor while filling nearby tissue with radioactiv- ity.
“A patient who has clinically detectable me- tastases when first seen has virtually a hope- less prognosis, as do patients who were appar- ently free of distant metastasis at that time but who subsequently return with distant metasta-
In addition to the problem of metastasiz- ing, following the burning process, there are other problems with radiation treatments.
One problem is that excessive exposure to radioactivity induces cancer! The part of the