Posted on Jun 16, 2009 in Cancer

When you’re battling cancer, the last thing you need is a scam,” states the Federal Trade Commission. Often when someone has cancer evidence takes a back seat to emotion as we desperately seek out a cure. When cancer strikes, a person will try anyth ing. Cancer puts us into some very dark places and in desperation we cannot seem to turn away from anything offered up in front of us. Certainly the majority of cancer patients cannot turn away from orthodox oncology’s offering of surgery, chemo and radiation therapy but it’s not clear whether these approaches represent what might be considered a “mainstream scam.”
A mainstream scam would be defined as the well accepted medical approach, defended in every corner of the medical universe as appropriate but still a scam because it’s based on false premises and highly manipulated information. Remember we have officially lost the war on cancer and chemo and radiation have led us into this failure. Why medical authorities defend a failed medical cancer paradigm is a bit difficult to comprehend.
Emotional and severe medical needs make patients vulnerable to clever marketing and deceptive claims and this is as true for orthodox oncology as it is for anyone else. Dr. Roy Herbst, lung cancer chief at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston thinks that, “A lot of these (alternative) doctors prey on people’s insecurities and=2 0need for hope,” but aren’t mainstream doctors doing the same?
We hear all kinds of stories and most are driven by fear of the unknown, fear of what we think is going to be a horrible end. Many of us have seen cancer treatments fail and have witnessed the most miserable ends of life, which we want to avoid at all cost. It’s normally the job of the physician to explain to patients what they need and what will happen if you follow their recommendations and what will happen if you don’t. But its almost impossible to find doctors who are not heavily biased and today’s cancer field is a battlefield between alternative methods and failed mainstream oncology.

Kathryn Richards and her daughter Leah Beth
The side-effects of the highest grade chemotherapy and radiotherapy Leah Beth’s body could tolerate, plus the after-effects of traumatic surgery, had left her shattered. Her weight had dropped by 9lb, her hair was and her skin was cracked and black around the right side of her stomach20from the side-effects of five-times-a-week radiotherapy.
The chemo and radiation just kills just everything
inside of you they do not give you a chance to live.
James Albert Leblanc
Terminal Cancer Survivor
“Because of the strength of the chemotherapy, she had become doubly incontinent and was often too weak to lift her head to vomit. Passing faeces was painful, and she had constant mouth sores. I remember her asking us if she was going to die and when we said ‘No, of course not’, she would say ‘I feel better now’, pick herself up and get on with having the next painful treatment. But now, with three radiation treatments left to go, e ven Leah Beth has cracked. “I know my daughter and realize she would not give up the fight lightly,” says Kathryn Richards. “So when she looked me in the eye and begged me, with tears flooding down her face, to end her treatment and give her some peace, I knew I had to abide by her decision. She knew that giving up treatment would mean her life expectancy would be much shorter, but she had got to the point where she didn’t think it was worth carrying on. We had to make a choice between quality and quantity of life, and if we had a few special months rather than a couple of miserable years then that was what she wanted. I made her a promise she would not have to go back to hospital.”
Kathryn Richards called the hospital and asked to speak to Leah Beth’s pediatric oncologist. “I explained that she had suffered enough and, as her mother, I was determined to support her. I wanted to halt the last few treatments of radiotherapy,” says Kathryn. “I don’t know what I expected – perhaps attempts to try to make me change my mind or agreement to a postponement of the treatment.” But, instead, the consultant said: “If that’s your attitude, we’ll get Child Protection Services involved.” Kathryn says: “I burst into tears, shaking with anger and fear. I had nursed my child through three bouts of20cancer. I sat by her bed night and day for seven months, doing the job of the nurses.”
Treatment side-effect profiles often determine treatment choices and guide decision-making.1 But trusting your cancer treatment involves much more than meets the eye. What sense is there in saving ones life if one destroys it? Mike Adams writes, “Chemotherapy is dangerous to human life. There’s no question whatsoever about that. Even the cancer doctors will tell you chemotherapy is poison.” This little girl and many others like her are being forced against their wills to receive chemotherapy. Once you open the door and walk down the orthodox oncology isle there is no getting away from treatments without being treated as a criminal. In observing the outrageous acts of doctors Adams and others are wondering if these cancer doctors and Child Protective Services zealots could be defined under law as “terrorists.” One thing we have to put up with is the practitioners themselves whose attitudes seem polite until you try to communicate something challenging and then they think nothing of stripping you of your rights.
Studies show that as many as two-thirds of cancer patients
who use unproven remedies do not tell their doctors knowing the
bitter conflict and scathing medical disapproval they will receive.
Many people do try many alternatives but after some months realize things are not working but this can equally be the same case with orthodox treatment. Traditionally doctors will use this as a scare tactic against alternatives saying, “With cancer, you get one chance. By the time you get back to a reasonable hospital, there will be nothing anyone can do for you.” What they don’t tell you is that more people die at these reasonable hospitals than anywhere else.