Re: Hippocratic Oath

http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/chemo_therapy_facts.asp
Cancer : Chemo Therapy ?

What doctors say about Chemo Therapy ?



Chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers----Hodgkin's disease,
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer,
and Choriocarcinoma? (Ralph Moss interview 1995)

There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in
any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common
organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers? (Dr Ulrich Abel.
1990)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOME - The Cancer Homepage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



World Without Cancer

by Edward G. Griffin

Excerpts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us take a look at the results and benefits of the so-called cures
obtained through surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chemo Statistics

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under
the heading: CANCER "CURE" LAETRILE

Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, ... said:

... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by
chemotherapy-the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on
cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly: "Present medical knowledge makes
it possible to cure seventy percent of. cancers, if they are detected
early."

Spokesmen for the American Cancer Society never tire of perpetuating the
myth of "proven cures." But they seldom look quite so foolish in the eyes
of those who know anything about true survival statistics as they do when
they speak of cures by chemotherapy.

We briefly have viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery
and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even
worse. The primary reason for this is that most of them currently in use
are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as
well. Generally they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to
the malignant cell.

All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantity. This is true
of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile, or even water. But, unlike those, the
anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a
side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, their poisonous
nature is not tolerated merely as a necessary price to pay in order to
achieve some desired effect, it is the desired effect.

These chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating
between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more
than others. But don't jump to the conclusion that they differentiate
between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells,
because they do not.

The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot
distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They act instead to
differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are
slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are
the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are
dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also
are caught in the act of dividing.

Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal
cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the
way. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even
slower than normal cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of
success.

In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and
the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than the disease
itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause
blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion
causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive
weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing, so the hair falls out during
treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain
becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable
function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them
elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment.

It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer
patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed
to them. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for
medical personnel, offers this warning:

The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a
concern for health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms
such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea,
and headache experienced by health care workers not using safe handling
precautions. In addition, increased concerns regarding the mutagenesis and
teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many
chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to be
carcinogenic [cancer -causing] in therapeutic doses. (Roland T. Skeel,
M.D., and Neil A. Lachant, M.D., Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy; Fourth
Edition (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), p.677.)

Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists
sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around them.
They include wearing disposable masks and gowns, eye goggles, and double
latex gloves. The procedure for disposing needles and other equipment used
with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under
the category of "hazardous waste." Yet, these same substances are injected
directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to
cure their cancer!

Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic
or produce the same effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress
the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the
cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one
or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in
the body As Dr. John Richardson has pointed out:

Both radiation therapy and attempts to "poison out" result in a profound
hostile in-imunosuppression that greatly increases the susceptibility to
metastasis. How irrational it would be to attempt to treat cancer
immunologically and/or physiologically, and at the same time administer
immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of any kind, methotrexate,
5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly useless and dangerous general cellular
poisons. All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress
the rejection phenomena associated with organ transplantation. The entire
physiological objective in rational cancer therapy is to increase the
rejection phenomena. (Open letter to interested doctors, Nov., 1972;
Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)

The view that toxic "anti-cancer" drugs usually accomplish just the
opposite of their intent is not restricted to the advocates of Laetrile.
It is a fact of life (or shall we say death?) that has become widely
acknowledged even by those who use these drugs. Dr. John Trelford, for
instance, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State
University Hospital has said:

At the present time, chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear
to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.... The problem
of blind chemotherapy means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs,
but also a lowering of the patient's resistance to the cancer cells owing
to the toxicity of these agents. ("A Discussion of the Results of
Chemotherapylogical Cancer and the Host's Immune Response," Sixth National
Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. A report from the Southern
Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted
for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted
drugs in the American Cancer Society's "proven cure~~ category produced
cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI
research contract PH-43-68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean
Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers,
op. cit., p. 5.)

In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National
Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institute's policy of
continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused
cancer. He argued:

Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now
approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human
cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2)
markedly immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patient's native
resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually
highly carcinogenic [cancer causing].... These now well established facts
have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer
Institute itself, as well as from throughout the United States and,
indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the
FDA-approved anti-cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps
less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human
cancer....

In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged
that the FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed toxic,
immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, as indicated. But then, even in the
face of the evidence, including your own White House statement of May 5,
1972, all pointing to the pitifully small effectiveness of such drugs, you
went on to say quite paradoxically it seems to me, "I think the Cancer
Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the NCI
has ever had."... One may ask, parenthetically, surely this does not speak
well of the "other program areas?"...

Frankly, I fail to follow you here. I submit that a program and series of
the FDA-approved compounds that yield only 5-10% "effectiveness" can
scarcely be described as "excellent, " the more so since it represents the
total production of a thirty-year effort on the part of all of us in the
cancer therapy field. (Letter to Frank Rauscher, dated April 20, 1973;
Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)

There is little evidence for long-term survival with chemotherapy. Here is
just a sampling of the negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of
whom still continue to prescribe it:

Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of Annals of Surgery,
stated:

As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect,
further use of 5-FU as an adjuvant to breast surgery in the regimen
employed is unwarranted. ("Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer of the
Breast: Results of A Decade of Cooperative Investigation," Annals of
Surgery, 168, No.3, Sept., 1968.)

Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at
Stanford University School of Medicine:

Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there will
be the inevitable relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and, either because
of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring
modifications of the chemotherapy program and eventually failure to
control the disease process. ("The Indications for Chemotherapy in the
Lymphomas," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:

Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and
practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we
have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period
of usually incomplete tumor regressions....

Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure
rate of 85%.... Some patients with gastrointestinal cancer can have very
long survival with no treatment whatsoever. (Speech made at the National
Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium, May 18, 1972.)

Dr. Robert D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic
Foundation:

There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop
anti-cancer drugs for use in the management of neoplastic diseases in man.
However, progress has been slow, and no chemical agents capable of
inducing a general curative effect on disseminated forms of cancer have
yet been developed. ("Ambulatory Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of
Primary and Secondary Skin Cancer," Sixth National Cancer Conference
proceedings, op. cit.)

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2)
immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would
doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they don't know what else
to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their
condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable
anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but
experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.

Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the
doctor does not like to tell the patient there is no hope. In his own mind
he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want
to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind
of treatment, no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by
continuing the treatment himself.

In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor Richards made it clear
that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for
treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He
said:

Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping
patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling
of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless
cancers. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs
may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery. (Victor Richards, The
Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment, (Berkeley: The
University of California Press, 1972), pp. 215-16.)

Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking,
cancerspreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures" for such "quackery"
as Laetrile!

Here, at last, is revealed the true goal of much of the so-called
"educational" programs of orthodox medicine-psychologically to condition
people not to try any other forms of therapy. That is why they perpetuate
the myth of "proven cures."

The American Cancer Society, in its Unproven Methods of Cancer Management,
stated:

When one realizes that 1,500,000 Americans are alive today because they
went to their doctors in time, and that the proven treatments of radiation
and surgery are responsible for these cures, he is less likely to take a
chance with a questionable practitioner or an unproven treatment.
(Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, op. cit., pp.17,18)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

Before leaving the subject of cancer therapy and moving on to the field of
cancer research, let us clarify and summarize our findings so far. Here is
a brief outline of the four optional modes of cancer therapy:

SURGERY: Least harmful. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap meas-ure. No
evidence that patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options
live any longer than those who receive the most conservative options, or,
for that matter, those who receive none at all. Believed to increase the
likelihood of disseminating cancer to other locations.

When dealing with internal tumors affecting reproductive or vital organs,
the statistical rate of long-term survival is, on the average, 10-15%.
After metastasis, the statistical chances for long-term survival are close
to zero.

RADIOLOGY: Very harmful in many ways. Spreads the cancer and weakens the
patient's resistance to other diseases. Serious and painful side-effects,
including heart failure. No evidence that treated patients live any
longer, on the average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of
long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.

CHEMOTHERAPY: Also spreads the cancer through weakening of immunological
defense mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to
other diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes.
Extremely serious side-effects. No evidence that treated patients live any
longer, on the average, than untreated patients. Statistical rate of
long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical
Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of
untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of
treated individuals?

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers----Hodgkin's disease,
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer,
and Choriocarcinoma?

Ralph Moss interview 1995 here



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in
any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common
organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers?

Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chemotherapy drugs are of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they
are given to, but are routinely given to 50% of patients?

John Cairns of Harvard in Scientific American



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not
participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its
unacceptable toxicity"?






Interview of Dr Manners
"(Tamoxifen) is a garbage drug that made it to the top of the scrap heap.
It is DES in the making."--Pierre Blais (Tamoxifen: A Major Medical
Mistake?
by Sherrill Sellman).
http://www.netspace.net.au/~newdome/hh_tamoxifen.html




The trouble with tamoxifen by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona MD MSc
http://www.selene.com/healthlink/tamoxifen.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Grouped together, the average cancer patient has a 50/50 chance of living
another 5 years; which are the same odds he or she had in 1971?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced
breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually
the same as it was 30 years ago?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After $50 Billion spent on cancer research, the list of cancers responsive
to chemotherapy is almost identical to what it was 25 years ago?
(Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, p81)

the War on Cancer is a failure with a death rate not lower but 6% higher
in 1997 than 1970?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HOME - The Cancer Homepage




----- Original Message -----
From: Goh Rosalind
To: thu.cat@xxxxxxxxx ; linamah1961@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:34 AM
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Please Help








Dear All: pls help the breast cancer foundation, by clicking onto their
website..
this is a good cause...pls help support.
thanks.
in love, light and peace...g
?
----- Original Message -----
From: Sharmistha Ray
To: Anita Pisharody ; Anu Raju ; Basabi Banerjee ; Benegal ; Chitra ;
Deepali Bhatia ; Geeta Kirpalani ; Gloria Keh ; Indira Vinay Mathur ;
lorraine alexander ; Ninita ; Pallak Bammi ; Parvati Gupta ; Poonam Rathor ;
S Mullick ; Saloni Bajaj Singh ; Sandhya Rajgopal ; Sarab Kapoor ; Sulekha
Das ; Swarna Rao ; Vibha ; Ritu Mohindra
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 20:57
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Please Help


?






>A favor to ask, it only takes a minute....
>?? * Y* 6 * Y
>
>??Please tell ten friends to tell ten today! The Breast Cancer site
>is having trouble getting enough people to click on their site daily
>to meet their quota of donating at least one free mammogram a day to
>an underprivileged woman. It takes less than a minute to go to their
>site and click on "donating a mammogram" for free (pink window in
>the middle).
>
>??This doesn't cost you a thing. Their corporate
>sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to donate
>mammogram in exchange for advertising.
>
>Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know.
>
>?
>
>??http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
>
>AGAIN , PLEASE TELL 10 FRIENDS TO TELL 10 TODAY
>
>
>
>
>??
>*************************************************************************
>*****
>
>
>?
>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get an advanced look at the new version of MSN Messenger.

"Feelers" <enjoylife488@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142980635.100172@xxxxxxxxxx
here is the original version. does s'pore have a special version? if so,
what is it?

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and
all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil
according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

"To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live
my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him
a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in
male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it -
without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction
and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has
instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an
oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

"I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to
my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I
make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an
abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

"I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will
withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

"Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick,
remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in
particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they
free or slaves.

"What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of
the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must
spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be
spoken about.

"If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to
enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to
come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this
be my lot."


Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein.



.