X hits on this document

PDF document

Alternative Cancer Remedies - page 178 / 200

770 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

178 / 200

Additional Information

body where the radiation treatment focused may have been burned out, but the surrounding tis- sue has tended to have cancer induced into it! “Energy from the ultraviolet rays of sunlight, and ionizing radiations from X-rays, radium, and other radioactive materials encountered in industry and in the general environment cause a variety of cancers. The pioneer workers with radium and X-rays developed cancers of the skin. Even now, radiologists and others exposed to high total doses of ionizing radiation are more likely to develop leukemia than persons not so exposed. Uranium miners have been found to have a higher than normal incidence of lung cancer.”—Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edi- tion, 764.

Another problem is the fact that radiation therapy causes normal cells to be more easily damaged than cancer cells. Because tumors con- tain more non-cancer cells, than cancer cells, the tumor will reduce in size—because the non- cancer cells were burned. Oddly enough, the cancer cells tend to be less harmed by the ra- diation—and remain in the now smaller tumor!

“Radiation and/or radiometic poisons will reduce palpable, gross or measurable tume- factions. Often this reduction may amount to seventy-five per cent or more of the mass of the growth.

“For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under radiation like snow in the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such a tumor, these will remain. The size of the tumor may thus be decreased by ninety percent while the relative concentration of definitively neoplas- tic cells is thereby increased by ninety per cent.

“As all experienced clinicians know—or at least should know—after radiation or chemo- therapy have reduced the gross tumefaction of the lesions, the patient’s general well-being does not substantially improve. To the contrary, there is often an explosive or fulminating increase in the biological malignancy of his lesion. This is marked by the appearance of diffuse metasta- sis and a rapid deterioration in general vitality followed shortly by death.”—John A. Rich- ardson, M.D., Letter to interested Physicians, November 1972.

Beware of all types of X-rays, much less the far more powerful cancer radiation treatments! In 1971 a Dr. Robert Gibson, at the University of Buffalo, found that fewer than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the same parts of the body increase the risk of leukemia by at least 60% (R.W. Gibson, M.D., National Inquire , December 5, 1971, 11).

“For each women who is possibly cured by

177

early detection, there are four or five new can- cers produced by these X-rays . . In my view this entire matter has become so serious that the NCI would be better off putting the money allotted for future screenings into a trust fund for the victims of the program who will develop cancer in ten to fifteen years’ time.”—Erwin Bross, M.D., National Inquirer, November 30, 1976, 49.

That article was written because Dr. Bross, di- rector of biostatistics at the Roswell Park Memo- rial Institute of Cancer Research, called for an im- mediate stoppage to chest X-rays. He charged that the ACS and NCI had ignored the objections of scientists,—so they could obtain government grants of $54 million to carry out the screening. Yet cancer radiation treatments are far worse! X-rays cause cancer; they do not cure it. Ra- diation therapy helps no one. The following state- ment is from the report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project: “From the data available it would seem that the use of post-operative irradiation has pro- vided no discernible advantage to patients so treated in terms of increasing the proportion who were free of disease for as long as five years.”—B. Fisher, et., al., “Postoperative Ra- diotherapy and the Treatment of Breast Can- cer; Results of the NSABP Clinical Trials, An- nals of Surgery, October 1970.

Dr. Phillip Rubin, Chief of the Division of Ra- diotherapy at the University of Rochester Medical School, summarized their analysis of the value of radiation therapy for cancer in these words: “The clinical evidence and statistical data in numerous reviews are cited to illustrate that no increase in survival has been achieved by the addition of irraditation.”—Phillip Rubin, “The Controversial Status of Radiation Therapy in Lung Cance ,” Speech delivered to the Sixth National Cancer Conference, spon- sored by the ACS and the NCI, Denve , Colo- rado, September 18-20, 1968.

At the same conference Dr. Vera Peters, a Toronto radiologist, said this: “There has been no true improvement in the successful treatment of the disease over the past thirty years.”—Vera Peters, “Radiation Therapy in the Management of Breast Cance ,” op., cit.

In the chapter on “Mutations” in his book, Ori- gin of Life (Volume Two of the three-book Evolu- tion Disproved Series), the present author wrote an article, entitled “Evolutionists’ Paradise” (pp. 424-427). It recounts the stories of the Chernobyl meltdown (April 27, 1990) and the Hiroshima nuclear blast (August 6, 1945). In both instances, large amounts of radiation were released. Predict-

Document info
Document views770
Page views770
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 14:56:20 UTC 2016
Pages200
Paragraphs5906
Words148734

Comments