Professor George Mathe,
French cancer specialist
Professor George Mathe,
French cancer specialist, "Scientific Medicine Stymied," Medicines Nouvelles
(Paris), said in March 1989, "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a
standard cancer treatment center. Cancer victims who live far from such
centers have a chance."
receive distorted information on alternative cancer treatments. Therefore,
you cannot rely on mainstream doctors to recommend the correct cancer
treatment. You must rely on yourself. If you can read the above two books,
you will most likely avoid:
Being operated on to
determine if your tumors are cancerous. The operation has a good chance of
spreading cancer cells and is completely unnecessary because there is a
urine test that is as reliable as a biopsy (source: World Without Cancer).
Being radiated at, but
radiation is usually just a delay tactic and the side effect of radiation is
cancer (source: The Cancer Industry).
Given chemo, which
derails your immune system and wrecks your kidneys. If the cancer persists,
and it usually does (World Without Cancer by Griffin), your body will
require months of recovery before most alternative treatments can help.
If you don't avoid the
above course of action, you and your insurance company will spend about
$200,000. Consider that one out of four people get cancer, do the math, and
you will have a feel for the most significant aspect of the cancer industry:
Doctors in Favor of
Many doctors say that
they support alternative treatments. But, these same doctors talk their
patients into taking the dangerous conventional treatments first. Then,
after chemo has destroyed the patient's immune system, they say, "OK try
those alternative cancer treatments now." This is backwards in the extreme.
Doesn't it make more sense to take the safer treatments first especially
since all conventional treatments are known to cause cancer
What Chemo Does
Chemo kills. It killed
my sister who died of pneumonia after chemo destroyed her immune system.
Renal failure has killed many others after chemo destroyed their kidneys.
There are so many accusations about the abuses inherent with conventional
cancer treatment that no less than eight books have explored "the cancer
Women who are given
mammograms are rarely told that this procedure subjects them to radiation
(Mammography may expose a woman to a radiation dose equal to 20-100 chest
x-rays). Paradoxically, while mammograms can detect cancer they can also
cause it. Cancer specialist Dr. Samuel Epstein (The Politics of Cancer,
pp. 427) warns that “the US National Cancer Institute and other experts are
now agreed that large-scale mammography screening programs are likely to
cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.” Dr. John W. Gofman
writes “there will be more breast cancers induced by the procedure than
there will be women saved from breast cancer death by early discovery of
lesions.” (Radiation and Human Health, pp. 235) So controversial are
mammography screening programs that according to a major US Government study
released January 23, 1997 there is no evidence pre-menopausal women benefit
from the procedure.
Both surgery and a
biopsy of a malignant tumor
can result in cancerous cells being released to spread to other parts of the
Trumpeted successes in
cancer treatment often turn into dismal failures. One of the best-known
examples happened in early 1999 when the Mayo Clinic at Rochester declared
King Hussein “cancer-free” after extensive chemotherapy treatments for
lymphatic cancer. The king returned to Jordan for a victory parade, greeting
his people while standing in a luxury convertible. Only a week later the
triumph turned into a tragedy when he was rushed back to the Mayo Clinic
where suddenly the diagnosis was changed from “cancer-free” to the prognosis
of “imminent death” due to multiple organ failure. He died on February 7,
less than two weeks later. There can be little doubt the severe damage to
his organs was caused by the cancer treatment which included chemotherapy.
URINE CANCER TEST
Stunning proof of this
claim is readily available. All trophoblast cells produce a unique hormone
called the chorionic gonadotrophic (CGH) which is easily detected in urine.
Thus if a person is either pregnant or has cancer, a simple CGH pregnancy
test should confirm either or both. It does, with an accuracy of better than
92% in all cases. If the urine sample shows positive it means either normal
pregnancy or abnormal malignant cancer. Griffin notes: "If the patient is a
woman, she either is pregnant or has cancer. If he is a man, cancer can be
the only cause." So why all of the expensive, dangerous biopsies carried to
'detect' cancerous growths? One can only assume that medicare pays doctors a
larger fee for biopsies than pregnancy tests.