by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D.

A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug
companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do
not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The
result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land
as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it
can cost you your life.

In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens
and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a
disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning
alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies,
conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as
the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic
Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as
scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in
this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer
establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause
successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual
clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer
industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land
because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality.

Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news
for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled
it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask
a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable,
while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that
threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out
the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you
understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from
the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and
consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate
the field of oncology.

The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do
with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political
control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an
overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the
public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as
treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the
scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer
field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that
effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around
a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the
pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and
government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the
American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph
Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public
relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate
scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional
approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National
Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer
Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno
Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was
the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS,
was its vice chairman.

Excerpted from Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer, page
643-647 , and reprinted with permission by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc,
21-1/2 Main St, Tiburon, CA 94920 (800) 333- HEAL. Website
www.alternative.medicine.com

[Home]  [Cancer]  [AIDS]  [Heart Disease] [Medical Politics]  [Vaccines]
[Dental]