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 because 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
specialize 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.
Websitewww.alternative.medicine.com
