Re: Greedy Doctors


"vvv" <xxxQxx@ccc. om> wrote in message news:...

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=91&db=5&C0=779


When Healing Becomes a Crime

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


Kenny Ausubel, Tikkun Magazine
June 12, 2001
There is another cancer war -- against "unproven" alternative
cancer therapies. But is the medical standard of proof a double
standard?

In February 2001, a federal government-sponsored report under
the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was published
finding "noteworthy cases of survival" among cancer patients using the
Hoxsey herbal treatment. After seventy-five years, Uncle Sam is finally
giving a state nod to what is arguably the most notorious alternative
cancer therapy in American history.

In the 1950s at the height of organized medicine's crusade
against the Hoxsey Cancer Clinics, the American Medical Association
crystallized the medical establishment's sentiments in its supremely
influential Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). "It is
fair to observe that the American Medical Association or any other
association or individual has no need to go beyond the Hoxsey label to
be
convinced. Any such person who would seriously contend that scientific
medicine is under any obligation to investigate such a mixture or its
promoter is either stupid or dishonest."

The recent NIH report marks a surprising reversal in the
longstanding medical civil war between conventional and alternative
approaches. After a long exile, alternative therapies are now ascendant,
riding a crest of popular demand, scientific validation, and commercial
promise. The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost
unrecognizable as valuable alternative therapies begin to permeate
mainstream practice.

If Harry Hoxsey had lived to witness this apparent sea-change
in medicine, he might likely feel very mixed emotions. He would heartily
cheer the grassroots surge propelling the movement, the same kind that
once carried his Hoxsey Cancer Clinics to unmatched heights of
popularity
and validation. He would be exhilarated by the philosophical conversion
of
his enemies. But he would also be cynical, suspicious that a clinging
monopoly was fighting to save face and above all keep its corner on the
cancer market. But then, Hoxsey survived decades of being "hunted like a
wild beast" only to see his clinics padlocked without the scientific
test
he relentlessly sought. He died a broken man, anguished over the future
he
felt was robbed from humanity. Yet the Hoxsey treatment did live on,
thriving as an underground legend, still attracting more patients today
than any of the other banished therapies, irrepressible after all.

The astonishing saga of the rise and fall and rebirth of
Hoxsey
provides a classic case history of the corrosive medical politics that
have long prevented the fair investigation of promising alternative
cancer
therapies. Paradoxically, this long-standing denunciation has not been
based on the objective scientific evidence that is supposed to determine
the acceptance or rejection of medical therapies. Rather, the dismissal
typifies the kind of pre-factual conclusion that has characterized
"scientific" medicine's century-long pattern of condemnation without
investigation.

In fact, the unspoken reason for the renaissance of
alternative
cancer therapies is sadly obvious: The medical establishment has largely
lost its celebrated "War on Cancer" based on surgery, radiation, and
chemotherapy. But what has remained hidden from most people is the
existence of the other cancer war: organized medicine's zealous campaign
against "unorthodox" cancer treatments and their practitioners. Over the
course of the twentieth century, innovators such as Harry Hoxsey
advanced
more than one hundred alternative approaches, at least several of which
have seemed to hold significant promise. Yet rather than inviting
interest
and investigation from mainstream medicine, their champions have been
ridiculed, threatened with the loss of professional licenses, harassed,
prosecuted, or driven out of the country.

The facts clearly reveal that a consortium of interests has
consistently condemned these treatments without investigation: the
American Medical Association (AMA), the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the American Cancer
Society (ACS), as well as certain large corporations that profit from
the
cancer industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of
interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical
politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians
themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of
alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to
research
or administer them.

The news blackout and disinformation campaign muffling this
scandal have been so effective that most people do not happen into the
underground of "disappeared" therapies until the fateful moment when
they
or their friends or relations are diagnosed with the dread disease.
Usually only while fighting for their lives do patients discover the
plethora of alternative cancer therapies claiming to offer hope and
benefit, though with little if any scientific evidence to support the
assertions. The story of Hoxsey sheds disturbing light on the many
anecdotes of "people who got well when they weren't supposed to," as
cancer surgeon Dr. Bernie Siegel terms these remarkable remissions in
the
netherworld of alternative therapies.

The Hoxsey Legend

In 1840 Illinois horse farmer John Hoxsey found his prize
stallion with a malignant tumor on its right hock. As a Quaker, he
couldn't bear shooting the animal, so he put it out to pasture to die
peacefully. Three weeks later, he noticed the tumor stabilizing, and
observed the animal browsing knee-deep in a corner of the pasture with a
profusion of weeds, eating plants not part of its normal diet.

Within three months the tumor dried up and began to separate
from the healthy tissue. The farmer retreated to the barn, where he
began
to experiment with these herbs revealed to him by "horse sense." He
devised three formulas: an internal tonic, an herbal-mineral red paste,
and a mineral-based yellow powder for external use. Within a year the
horse was well, and the veterinarian became locally famous for treating
animals with cancer.

The farmer's grandson John C. Hoxsey, a veterinarian in
southern Illinois, was the first to try the remedies on people, and
claimed positive results. His son Harry showed an early interest and
began
working with him at the age of eight. When John suffered an untimely
accident, he bequeathed the formulas to the fifteen-year-old boy with a
charge to treat poor people for free, and to minister to all races,
creeds, and religions without prejudice. He asked that the treatment
carry
the Hoxsey name. Finally, he warned the boy against the "High Priests of
Medicine" who would fight him tooth-and-nail because he was taking money
out of their pockets.

Hoxsey planned to go to medical school to bring the treatment
to the world, but soon found he had been blackballed after secretly
treating several terminal patients who pled for their lives. With a
local
banker backing him, he founded the first Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in 1924,
championed by the chamber of commerce and high school marching bands on
Main Street.

As early word of his reputed successes spread, Hoxsey was
invited to nearby Chicago, headquarters of the newly powerful AMA, to
demonstrate the treatment. Grisly and indisputable photographic proof of
the terminal case Hoxsey treated verifies that the patient recovered,
living on for twelve years, cancer-free.

Hoxsey then claimed that a high AMA official offered him a
contract for the rights to the formulas. The alleged agreement assigned
the property rights to a consortium of doctors including Dr. Morris
Fishbein, the AMA chief and editor of the JAMA. Hoxsey himself would be
required to cease any further practice, to be awarded a small percentage
of profits after ten years if the treatment panned out. Invoking his
Quaker father's deathbed charge that poor people be treated for free and
that the treatment carry the family name, Hoxsey said the official
threatened to hound him out of business unless he acquiesced.

Whatever may have happened, that's when the battle started.
The
AMA first denied the entire incident, then later acknowledged the
patient's remission, though crediting it to prior treatments by surgery
and radiation.

Yet one thing was certain: Hoxsey had made a very powerful
enemy. By crossing swords with Fishbein, he alienated the most powerful
figure in medicine. The AMA promptly dubbed him the worst cancer quack
of
the century, and he would be arrested more times than any other person
in
medical history.

Hoxsey quickly found himself opposing Fishbein's emerging
medical-corporate complex. As late as 1900, medicine was therapeutically
pluralistic and financially unprofitable. Doctors had the highest
suicide
rate of any profession owing to their extreme poverty and low social
standing. Fishbein's AMA would engineer an industrialized medical
monoculture. What radically tipped the balance of power was an arranged
marriage between big business and organized medicine. Under Fishbein's
direction, the AMA sailed into a golden harbor of prosperity fueled by
surgery, radiation, drugs, and a sprawling high-tech hospital system.
The
corporatization of medicine throttled diversity. The code word for
competition was quackery.

It was easy for the medical profession to paint Hoxsey as a
quack: he fit the image perfectly. Brandishing his famed tonic bottle,
the
ex-coal miner arrived straight from central casting as the stereotype of
the snake-oil salesman. When the AMA coerced the pathologist who
performed
Hoxsey's biopsies to cease and desist, Hoxsey could no longer verify the
validity of his reputed successes. Organized medicine quickly adopted
the
stance that his alleged "cures" fell into three categories: those who
never had cancer in the first place; those who were cured by prior
radiation and surgery; and those who died. In exasperation, Hoxsey
attempted an end run by approaching the National Cancer Institute. In
close collaboration with the AMA, the federal agency refused his
application for a test because his medical records did not include all
the
biopsies.

Meanwhile Hoxsey struck oil in Texas and used his riches to
promote his burgeoning clinic and finance his court battles. Piqued at
Hoxsey's rise, Fishbein struck back in the public media, penning an
inflammatory article in the Hearst Sunday papers entitled "Blood Money,"
in a classic example of purple prose and yellow journalism. Outraged,
Hoxsey sued Fishbein. In two consecutive trials, Hoxsey beat Fishbein,
standing as the first person labeled a "quack" to defeat the AMA in
court.
During the trials, Hoxsey's lawyers revealed that Fishbein had failed
anatomy in medical school, never completed his internship, and never
practiced a day of medicine in his entire career.

By now Fishbein was mired in multiple scandals, including his
effective but unpopular obstruction of national health insurance at a
time
when doctors had become the richest professionals in the country and the
Journal the most profitable publication in the world. Drug ads powered
JAMA, but its biggest single advertiser in the 1940s was Phillip Morris.
(Camel cigarettes had the largest booth at the AMA's 1948 convention,
boasting in its ads that "More doctors smoke Camels than any other
cigarette.") Enmeshed in controversy, Fishbein's stock was trading low,
and, shortly after his first loss to Hoxsey, the AMA chief was deposed
in
a humiliating spectacle.

But ironically Hoxsey's stunning dark-horse victory against
the
"most terrifying trade organization on Earth" only ended up bringing the
house down. He immediately faced a decade-long "quackdown" by the FDA.

By the 1950s, Hoxsey was riding what was arguably the largest
alternative-medicine movement in American history. A survey by the
Chicago
Medical Society showed 85 percent of people still using "drugless
healers." Hoxsey's Dallas stronghold grew to be the world's largest
privately owned cancer center with 12,000 patients and branches
spreading
to seventeen states. Congressmen, judges, and even some doctors ardently
supported his quest for an investigation. Two federal courts upheld the
therapeutic value of the treatment. Even his archenemies, the American
Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that
the therapy does cure certain forms of cancer. JAMA itself had published
the research of a respected physician who got results superior to
surgery
using a red paste identical to Hoxsey's for skin cancers including
lethal
melanoma, a skin cancer that also spreads internally.

Medical authorities escalated their quackdown in the
McCarthyite wake of the 1950s. On the heels of a California law
criminalizing all cancer treatments except surgery, radiation, and
chemotherapy, the federal government finally outlawed Hoxsey entirely in
the United States in 1960 on questionable technicalities. Chief nurse
Mildred Nelson took the clinic to Tijuana in 1963, abandoning any hope
of
operating in the United States. It was the first alternative clinic to
set
up shop south of the border. Mildred quietly treated another 30,000
patients there until her death in 1999. Like Hoxsey, she claimed a high
success rate, but her contention is unverifiable since the treatment has
yet to be rigorously tested.

Hoxsey never claimed a panacea or cure-all. He maintained
that
the Dallas doctors used his clinic as a "dumping ground" for hopeless
cases, and that the great majority of patients he got were terminal,
having already had the limit of surgery and radiation. He said he cured
about 25 percent of those. Of virgin cases with no prior treatment, he
claimed an 80 percent success rate. Seventy-five years after Hoxsey
began,
why do we still not know the validity of his claims?

The "Unproven Treatments"

Organized medicine has systematically dismissed alternative
cancer therapies as "unproven," lacking the rigorous scientific proof of
clinical trials. But if the Hoxsey treatment is unproven, it's not
disproven. Like virtually all the "unorthodox" cancer therapies over the
course of the twentieth century, it was politically railroaded rather
than
medically tested. However, over the last few decades, controlled
laboratory tests have shown all the individual herbs in the internal
tonic
to possess anti-tumor and anti-cancer properties, as I documented in
detail in my recent book on Hoxsey, When Healing Becomes A Crime. Though
the formula has never been tested as a whole entity, clearly there is a
credible scientific basis for looking at it. Organized medicine has not
disputed the effectiveness of the external remedies since 1950, and the
red paste (Mohs treatment) is listed in Taber's Medical Encyclopedia as
a
"standard treatment," though it is seldom used.

After all, plants are the cornerstone of pharmaceutical
drugs.
The very word drug derives from the Dutch term droog, which means "to
dry," since people have historically dried plants to make medicinal
preparations. It is well proven that many botanicals possess powerful
anti-cancer properties. Numerous primary pharmaceuticals derive from
plants, as do several major chemotherapy drugs, such as Taxol from the
Pacific Yew tree, Vincristine and Vinblastine from the Madagascar
periwinkle, and Camptothecin from the wood and bark of a Chinese tree.
About 30 percent of chemotherapy drugs altogether are derived from
natural
substances, mainly plants. A quarter of modern drugs still contain a
plant
substance, and about half are modeled on plant chemistry.

During Hoxsey's era, surgery and radiation were primitive and
excessive. Both were solely local treatments, reflecting the
profession's
belief that cancer was a local disease. As such they could address just
a
quarter of all cases, claiming to cure only about a quarter of those.
With
the advent of toxic chemotherapy drugs in the 1950s, organized medicine
at
last acknowledged cancer as a systemic disease, which Hoxsey and the
other
"unorthodox" practitioners had been asserting throughout.

Clearly, conventional cancer treatments have an important
place
in medicine and save lives. But since the 1950s, evidence has steadily
accumulated that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are far less
effective than the public is being led to believe. Investigative
journalist Daniel Greenberg, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review
in
1975, produced the first widely reported exposé showing that cancer
survival rates since the 1950s had not progressed, and that improvements
from 1930 to 1950 were mainly a consequence of improved hospital nursing
care and support systems. Greenberg found that even the valid
improvements
were very, very small, and that there had been no significant
advancements
in treating any of the major forms of cancer.

By 1969, Dr. Hardin Jones had already released a shocking
report on this issue at the Science Writers Convention, sponsored by the
American Cancer Society. Jones, a respected professor of medical physics
from the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on
statistics
and the effects of radiation and drugs, concluded that "the common
malignancies show a remarkably similar rate of demise, whether treated
or
untreated." Joining the fray, Nobel laureate James Watson charged that
the
American public had been sold a "nasty bill of goods about cancer." This
eminent co-discoverer of the DNA double helix remarked bluntly that the
War on Cancer was "a bunch of ***."

These "proven" cancer treatments are themselves largely
unproven. The standard of proof for therapeutic efficacy is in fact a
double standard. Surgery was grandfathered in as standard practice early
in the twentieth century without randomized, double-blind clinical
trials,
which only became widespread in the 1960s with the advent of
chemotherapy.
Its dangers and limitations have since been only superficially
acknowledged or studied, and little is known about its efficacy in
relation to a baseline marker of no treatment.

Like surgery, radiation therapy was grandfathered in without
rigorous testing. Radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic. In the few
tests comparing radiation treatment against no treatment, according to
Jones, "Most of the time, it makes not the slightest difference if the
machine is turned on or not." Jones went even further, saying, "My
studies
have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up
to
four times longer." Radiation is often combined with surgery despite the
fact that tests have generally shown it made no apparent favorable
difference. A recent study with patients with the most common form of
lung
cancer found that postoperative radiation therapy, which is routinely
given, actually raises the relative risk of death by 21 percent, with
its
most detrimental effects on those in the early stages of illness.
Nevertheless, radiation is used on about half of cancer patients.

It was into this disappointing setting that chemotherapy
entered as the next great hope of cancer treatment. Chemotherapy drugs
are
poisons that are indiscriminate killers of cells, both healthy and
malignant. The strategy is quite literally to kill the cancer without
killing the patient. By the mid-1980s, prominent members of orthodoxy
published unsettling assessments that could no longer be dismissed.
Writing in Scientific American, Dr. John Cairns of Harvard found that
chemotherapy was able to save the lives of just 2 to 3 percent of cancer
patients, mostly those with the rarest kinds of the disease. By
medicine's
own standards, at best chemotherapy is unproved against 90 percent of
adult solid tumors, the huge majority of common cancers resulting in
death. Moreover, true placebo controls have been almost abandoned in the
testing of chemotherapy. Drug regimen is tested against drug regimen,
and
doctors hardly ever look at whether the drugs do better than simple good
nursing care. Because chemotherapy drugs are outright poisons, many
carcinogenic, the drugs themselves can cause "treatment deaths" and
additional cancers. One study among women surviving ovarian cancer after
chemotherapy treatment showed a one-hundred-fold greater subsequent
incidence of leukemia over those not receiving chemotherapy. In some
studies, when chemotherapy and radiation were combined, the incidence of
secondary tumors was about twenty-five times the expected rate.
Nevertheless, chemotherapy is given to 80 percent of patients

Amazingly, 85 percent of prescribed standard medical
treatments
across the board lack scientific validation, according to the New York
Times. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, suggests
that
"this is partly because only one percent of the articles in medical
journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments
have
never been assessed at all."

A hundred years from now, medicine will likely come to regard
some of these "proven" cancer treatments the way we now remember the use
of mercury and bloodletting. As Dr. Abigail Zuger recently wrote in the
New York Times contemplating the hundredth anniversary of the 1899 Merck
Manual: "We have harnessed our own set of poisons for medical treatment;
in a hundred years a discussion of cancer chemotherapy may read as
chillingly as endorsements of strychnine for tuberculosis and arsenic
for
diabetes do today."

The Big Business of Cancer

The medical civil war between Hoxsey and organized medicine
has
largely reflected a trade war. Profitability has often been the driving
force behind the adoption of official therapeutics. At over $110 billion
a
year just in the United States, cancer is big business, a whopping 10
percent of the national health-care bill. The typical cancer patient
spends upward of $100,000 on treatment. It is estimated that each
hospital
admission for cancer produces two to three times the billings of a
typical
non-cancer admission. More people work in the field than die from the
disease each year. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of
environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois in
Chicago, "For decades, the war on cancer has been dominated by powerful
groups of interlocking professional and financial interests, with the
highly profitable drug development system at its hub." Global sales of
chemotherapy drugs in 1997 were $30.9 billion, about $12 billion of it
in
the United States.



Pharmaceutical companies pin the high costs of drugs on the
forbidding expense of testing and approving each new drug, now pegged at
$500 million. In fact, this prohibitive figure has served as a barrier
of
entry for all but giant corporations. The entire system is founded in
patents, twenty-year exclusive licenses that provide monopoly
protection.
As an herbal product, the Hoxsey tonic cannot be patented and therefore
occupies the status of an orphan drug that no company will develop.
While
approving about forty highly toxic cancer drugs, the FDA has yet to
approve a single nontoxic cancer agent or one not patented by a major
pharmaceutical company.

Alternative therapies are finally emerging in part because of
the dramatic cost savings they represent, and because at least some may
well represent a major new profit center. "Alternative medicine is
clearly
the largest growth industry in health care today," wrote Jane Brody in
the
New York Times in 1998. Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard surveyed the
American public to find 42 percent using alternative therapies in 1997.
The number of visits to alternative practitioners exceeded total visits
to
primary-care physicians. Spending was conservatively estimated at $21.2
billion, with at least $12.2 billion paid out-of-pocket by committed
customers. Total out-of-pocket expenditures for alternative therapies
were
comparable with expenditures for all physician services.

The numbers are no less dramatic for cancer treatment. A
national study estimated 64 percent of cancer patients to be using
alternative therapies. A recent survey at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,
the
world's largest with 13,000 patients, found an astounding 83 percent
using
alternatives.

Major corporations are already entering the alternative
marketplace. Procter & Gamble initially spent millions sponsoring the
research of Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who took up the work of Donald Kelley, a
dentist who reputedly cured himself of terminal pancreatic cancer using
enzymes and other nutritional means. A pilot study with pancreatic
cancer
patients provided better results than had been seen in the history of
medicine for a disease that is 95 percent incurable. The subjects lived
an
average of triple the usual survival rate, and two patients have lived
for
four and five years with no detectable disease. Nestlé has also financed
the work of Dr. Gonzalez. These studies led to a $1.4 million grant to
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons by the NIH's
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and
supervised by the NCI. The engagement of large corporations vaulted the
formerly reviled treatment to instant plausibility. When big companies
start to take a stake in alternative cancer therapies, it signifies the
maturation of a market and consecrates a political realignment.

Both M. D. Anderson and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center
have been testing green tea, or more accurately several of its "active"
ingredients, for anti-cancer properties. Because various studies have
shown that green tea reduces the risk of colorectal, lung, esophageal,
and
pancreatic cancers, Lipton tea company is also testing the substance at
the University of Arizona.

In association with the NCI, M. D. Anderson is set to
evaluate
shark cartilage, which is reputed to have anti-cancer activity and is
widely used by a cancer underground in the United States and abroad.
(Sadly, this market surge is further endangering several shark species.)
The University of Toronto is testing mistletoe, a folk remedy for cancer
espoused by the Austrian spiritual philosopher Rudolf Steiner,
originator
of Waldorf education and biodynamic farming. Mistletoe has shown
anti-tumor effects in both human and animals studies in Germany.

The release of the report on Hoxsey through the NIH's NCCAM
is
a harbinger of the changes to come. As the report concludes, further
investigation "is justified not only because of the public health issue
to
justify the large number of patients who seek treatment at this clinic,
but also because of the several noteworthy cases of survival." The
report
specifically notes a seven-year melanoma patient who had no other
treatment besides Hoxsey's tonic and external salves. Average survival
time for advanced melanoma is seven months. If such a remarkable
remission
occurred using conventional treatments, it would be front-page news
worldwide.

"It's interesting to contemplate the dilemma that the
National
Cancer Institute is in," conjectures Ralph Moss, an advisor to the NCCAM
and NCI, and a respected researcher and author on both alternative and
conventional cancer treatments. "If they do decide to do the tests, then
there's always that possibility -- and I think it's a damn good
possibility -- that some of these treatments are going to turn out to be
quite valuable. If they decide not to do the tests, there's going to be
tremendous fury in Congress and the public, because what then are they
about? If they're not about scientific testing, what good are they? Why
are we wasting our money?

"What we're saying is: Prove them or disprove them. We've had
seventy-five years of Hoxsey. Does it work? Doesn't it work? Nobody
knows.
How do you know? Short of good studies, how does one decide issues like
that? We don't want people doing something if it's not going to work for
them, not in terms of just conventional treatment, but alternative
treatments as well."

"The best-case scenario," Moss speculates, "is that some
tests
will be carried out with the imprimatur of NCI, NCCAM, and probably
other
collaborative centers like the University of Texas and Columbia. Some of
those will show that there's no effectiveness, and some of them will
probably show that there is effectiveness in some treatments. The ones
that are shown to be effective that are funded by and based on
NCI-reported research are then going to be published in major medical
journals. The first one that validates a nontoxic treatment is the
beginning of the end of this Middle Ages that we're in. Because once one
goes through the door, then a lot of others are going through the door,
and that's what they're afraid of. They're afraid that, if a Hoxsey were
proven to be effective, the public will run to it because nobody wants
the
chemo drugs. If chemo is the only choice, then they'll reluctantly take
it, but the minute it's known there is something nontoxic out there,
everybody's going to want it."

The abiding truth for cancer patients is that they want
unrestricted access to all treatments. According to one analysis, only
about 5 percent entirely abandon conventional cancer care even when
pursuing an alternative. What patients seek is the best of all worlds,
an
expanded menu of options supported by access to credible information.
The
stereotype that orthodoxy has long put forth of poor, credulous cancer
patients ripe for exploitation by clever promoters turns out to be
false.
In a study by sociologist Barrie Cassileth, the profile of patients
using
alternative cancer therapies describes well-educated, middle-income,
often
female clients who have done a considerable amount of due diligence to
make their choice.

While physicians fought fiercely for their professional
sovereignty during the twentieth century, the greater social issue today
is the sovereignty of the patient. In a market economy, goes the old
saw,
the customer is always right. The AMA's Oliver Field, an architect of
the
aggressive repression against Hoxsey and myriad "quack" therapies in the
1950s, responded surprisingly when I posed to him the polarizing
question
of freedom of medical choice. "This is a free country. You pays your
money
and you takes your choice. If it's wrong, you're the one who's going to
suffer."

It was anomalous to hear the former head of the AMA's Bureau
of
Investigation, which once boasted a rolodex of over 300,000 "quacks,"
echo
the words of his past nemesis. Judge William Hawley Atwell, who ruled
twice in Hoxsey's favor in federal courts and fully affirmed the
therapy's
value, had stated in 1949 regarding Hoxsey's victory over Dr. Morris
Fishbein: "So I wish to say, pay your money and take your choice. Those
who need a doctor, if you think one side is the best, go and get him. If
you think the other side is best, you certainly have the right to go and
get him. This is a free country; that is what we stand for in America."

Why was the Hoxsey therapy not investigated in the first
place
seventy-five years ago? The overarching truth is that it has been
politically railroaded instead of medically tested. The medical civil
war
has distorted cancer from a medical question into a political issue. The
many practitioners and doctors thrust involuntarily into the front lines
of the cancer wars would surely prefer to settle the question in a
clinic
or laboratory, not a courtroom. Meanwhile, cancer patients remain
trapped
in the crossfire, fighting for their lives.





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

Related:



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

News

1.. The Breast Cancer Awareness Month Story Oct 03
2.. New concerns over breast screening Sep 25
3.. When Healing Becomes a Crime Jul 29
4.. Fish Oil Reduces Breast Cancer Jun 08
5.. Most Women Satisfied With Having Their Healthy Breasts
Removed
May 28
6.. Insulin and Estrogen linked to Breast Cancer May 28
7.. Hormone Replacement Casually Related to Breast Cancer May 28
8.. Pesticides Increase Breast Cancer Risk May 28
9.. Healthy Women Having Their Breasts Removed May 28
10.. Unnecessary Mastectomies May 28
11.. Do Killer Microbes Cause Breast Cancer? May 15




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





CureZone Sponsors: Learn about sponsorship
DrNatura Colonix Global College of Natural Medicine
HowHealthWorks
NetAtlantic Science Detox ClearBlueAir Air Purifiers




We Thank to Search Engines for Indexing CureZone:
Google Yahoo AOL MSN A.Vista Ask Lycos GO Netscape LookSmart
Search iWon A.T.Web Mamma Teoma Ilse Eniro Goo Stumble


Donate to CureZone



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

Guest Book - Liver Flush FAQ - News - Contact - Link Exchange - Add
URL -
How To Exchange Links? - About Global Directory

About CureZone - Sponsorship - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Spam
Policy - Disclaimer - Guidelines & Rules - Forum Trolls - Fair use
notice



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

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with
www.netatlantic.com



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

Copyright 1996 - 2005 CureZone.com

S B R



al 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.



"globalise" <globalise@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e17s2u$n3a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Overheard this at an HDB clinic. Someone staying upstair asked for
the doctor to attend to probably an emergency. The counter clerk
informed him that the clinic charged $200 for housecall.
Wow, no wonder everyone want to be doctors. What a way to
reap easy money. I wonder if this is normal, and if the SMA is
aware of such exorbitant fee?






.