Quotes from 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."

Mainstream doctors 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 Alternatives

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 conspiracy."

Mammography

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 body.

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.