David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Health / Natural Healing / Therapies / Nutrition (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   75% of the physicians refuses chemotherapy (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=144836)

orslah 18-11-2010 01:41 AM

75% of the physicians refuses chemotherapy
The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)

“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)
“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)

Also see: Chemo destroys brain cells

zsymon 18-11-2010 02:11 AM

Thank you for posting this mate, it has offered me valuable information.

runlikehell 18-11-2010 02:33 AM

intresting post Orslah, chemo is like using tnt to blow your nose imo

biblegirl 18-11-2010 03:07 AM

good read, thank you to the OP :)

jackson82 18-11-2010 06:10 AM

yeh good read

ashikenshin 18-11-2010 06:13 AM

A very dear friend of mine died of cancer or should I say the chemo therapy the doctors administered. Always giving him hopes until his insurance ran out. :(

passing 18-11-2010 06:24 AM

Yep, cheers!

llogun 18-11-2010 08:23 AM

you watch how quick a person goes down hill when they start having chemo

stillwakingup 18-11-2010 10:20 AM

Have never understood this myself.Are there any figures on how many people actually get better after chemo?

weeme 18-11-2010 11:11 AM


Originally Posted by stillwakingup (Post 1059431614)
Have never understood this myself.Are there any figures on how many people actually get better after chemo?

Don't Know where I found the exact details but if you are alive 5 years after chemo it is claimed that you are cured of cancer even if you died the next day.

Will look for the information tonight as my internet is shaped during the day.

What worries me more is the fact that the doctors use any excuse to use chemo. If a tumour is found to be beneign they still want to zap it 'in case'.

One of my clients has just received chemo for psoriasis on her hand!!!!
:eek: I nearly swallowed my tongue when I heard that.

blue2 18-11-2010 11:42 AM

It's almost akin to doctors over prescribing antibiotics for all and sundry...i was told once that about 2% live after 5 yrs..tis a very low percentage of survival and usually ill all the time too..just think of Jade Goody the mess even Private doctors made of her with same mis treatment and other actresses too.

And talking of Radiation....Sellafield the Nuclear Centre in Cumbria is guilty of several decades of organizing removal of all organs of any person who worked there and who died..systematically the local hospital Pathologist/Coroners all had a secret agreement for total removal of all organs without knowledge of families...it is called the Redfern Report, Michael Redfern QC who launched the inquiry three years ago and has completed a 650 page report...some 6,500 deaths..of nuclear workers...thyroid glands were removed and even thigh bones which were replaced with broom handles then covered with skin..almost every organ gone,the local paper headlined it WE BURIED EMPTY SHELLS...Think Aldermaston is mentioned too.

weeme 18-11-2010 03:36 PM


This site opened my eyes up to the different alternative cancer treatments available.

It discusses different types of cancers, the 4 stages of cancer and different types of treatments available.

It is a must for someone with cancer and anyone who has loved ones that have been diagnosed with it.

mark1963 18-11-2010 05:36 PM


Originally Posted by stillwakingup (Post 1059431614)
Have never understood this myself.Are there any figures on how many people actually get better after chemo?

I don't have the reference but it is approximately a 96% failure rate.

weeme 18-11-2010 05:54 PM

I think Mark63 is correct with the figures.

Here is an interesting titbit out of cancertutor.com:

What Most People Die Of

Most people who "die of cancer" really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself. In other words: the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them.

Most cancer patients die of malnutrition (cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients need a stronger than normal immune system) or opportunistic infections caused by a weakened immune system.

* "The powerful drugs used in cancer chemotherapy effectively kill reproducing cells, including both the malignant tumor cells and also, as a side effect, many cells continually reproducing such as hair follicle cells and those lining the gut, leading to severe nausea & vomiting. These side effects can be very severe and many patients find these difficult or impossible to tolerate, falling into a wasting syndrome through malnutrition brought on by a combination of reduced appetite and poor gastrointestinal efficiency, which can itself shorten life expectancy."

Chemotherapy also destroys the immune system in several different ways (including the damage done to the gastrointestinal tract causing less immune building nutrients to be absorbed, among other ways), making people much more susceptible to infections.

Because chemotherapy is so toxic, a person might ask: "can chemotherapy kill the all of the cancer cells before it kills the patient?" The answer is 'no'.

But let us get back to our main question: "does the concept of 'remission' equate to the concept of 'length of life since diagnosis?'" Most people assume there is a direct correlation, however, the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation, and the severe shortening of life due to the complications of these two treatments, cause severe doubt as to the equivalence of 'remission' and 'length of life since diagnosis.'

My point is to say that the measurement statistics of orthodox medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size) versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune system, destruction of vital organs, etc.). Nor does the reduction in tumor size have anything to do with life expectancy (I will talk more about this later).

* "It makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other cells which are more likely to turn cancerous."

link herehttp://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetwee...ure_Rates.html

noncooperation 18-11-2010 06:36 PM

Thanks OP for interesting information, not surprised though, they SEE with their own eyes what happens!

princessofwands 19-11-2010 08:28 AM

The drugs don't work on most people... A Glaxo boss said so! :eek::rolleyes:


Glaxo Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work on Most Patients by Steve Connor

A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.

Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.

It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.

Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.

Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.

"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."

Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewelry boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicized fact known to the drugs industry for many years.

"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."

Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realize that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.

The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.

This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.

Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.

"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said.

"Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."

Response rates

Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent

Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrhythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatitis C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis)50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis50
Schizophrenia: 60


When my father-in-law had prostate cancer, his son (a big wig in cancer research) told him NOT to have chemo. He was given hormonal drugs instead and lived for another 7 years before the cancer finally spread and carried him away.

Dude111 19-11-2010 09:56 AM


“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).
Probably cause its the EASIEST thing to do.... (They dont care enough about someone TO TRY ALTERNATIVES... THEY WANT THE $$$ AND NOW)


Originally Posted by ashikenshin
A very dear friend of mine died of cancer or should I say the chemo therapy the doctors administered. Always giving him hopes until his insurance ran out. :(

Yea all they care about is the $$$ and its fucking disgusting!

Im sorry about your friend :(

noncooperation 29-11-2010 12:47 AM

'medical mafia' good book on this subject

lastc 06-12-2010 08:32 PM

Well, I can see where there very little feeling here for the stock holders of the big pharmas, what about this $50 millions yacht, do you think we are going to pay for that with those natural cures, not counting that we have to put fuel in those boats, this is expensive, where is your heart?

Also there is this mater of reducing the world population, I am sure you will understand, that if we make a few dollars while reducing the numbers of those "useless eater" (as Kissinger puts it)that it makes total sense.

A total lack of compassion there is, How do you think we are going to buy and maintain our many mansions, it not cheap you know
When you get only $125 million bonus per year, plus your salary, you must be careful with your spending
I think a new paradigm is in order: you are slave, you pay, and get nothing in return.....oh I forgot...it is already in place

princessofwands 07-12-2010 08:32 AM


let them have a lean Christmas like the rest of us! :rolleyes:

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 AM.