American Anti-Cancer Society
According to a report from the American Cancer Society,
during the present year 6.7 million persons will die from
cancer and 12 million more will be diagnosed as having
contracted the disease, worldwide.
3
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
According to the results, it can be said that conventional
cancer treatments are in general valid only for prolonging life,
however without providing certainty about for how long.
Official approval of cancer drugs is based on their eventual
ability to provide some life extension, not on curing the disease.
It should be obvious to everybody at this time, that to eradicate
cancer an altogether different methodology needs to be
found and implemented.
Before closing this first part of my letter, I would like to offer an
example - one among who knows how many millions that
don’t come up in the news - to open the eyes of those who are
not yet aware of the high risk at which our lives are, and to put
emphasis on the urgent need to undertake action.
It is the case of Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin, Catholic Bishop
of Chicago, a noted personality who died from cancer on
November 14, 1996, at 68 years of age.
Cardinal Bernardin was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
about three years before his decease. No need to say that he
got the best medical attention available and, about three
months before passing away, he got a clean bill of health. This
event was trumpeted in the news, taking profit of the occasion
to let everybody know how effective the administered
treatments had been. About two weeks later, he underwent
some simple corrective surgery, in the process of which
several large tumors were spotted in the liver. He received
a terminal prognosis at six months; he passed away three
months later.
This is a foremost example of how inefficient conventional
methodology is, in obvious detriment of your possibilities of
survival if you have the misfortune of contracting the disease.
Where do we go from here?
We have in our hands the results of successful research on
cancer, completed more than fifty years ago, that demonstrated
that the process of carcinogenesis is reversible, that it can
be accurately detected well in advance of malignant cell-
transformation and tumor formation, and that the cancerous
organism can be thoroughly be brought back to normal,
without resorting to toxic therapeutics or physical and
physiologic maiming procedures. And that once detected at an
early stage, the causal factors can be corrected for true
prevention.
At that time, a couple of unknown researchers – a physician
and a young biochemist – undertook some investigation
with the simple initial purpose of verifying a presumption of
analgesic properties in the extract obtained from a plant
species unknown to have medicinal properties. Such
presumption had arisen from a reference in some old medical
records, about some for long forgotten aborigine tradition
attributing pain-relief properties to such plant species.
The particular interest in this natural drug was the possibility of
replacing morphine for the treatment of cancer-specific pain,
to avoid the well known adverse effects of opiates, and to
provide relief to those patients who develop tolerance
to those analgesics.
When clinical trials started in terminal patients with cancer-
specific chronic and paroxistic pain - nowadays called
‘breakthrough pain’ - the researchers were surprised to
observe that, not only did pain thoroughly vanish in all
instances, irrespective of at what stage of the disease the
patient was, and the type of cancer, but also that within a
couple of weeks - along with tumor remission that had
been already observed during pre-clinical trials in dogs - the
patients were experiencing notable improvement of their
general condition.
Those researchers could have satisfied themselves with the
simple discovery of a drug to treat cancer pain very effectively,
and make an immense fortune right away. They chose instead
to proceed with the investigation in search of explanations for
their observations.
The study of biopsies taken from patients under treatment
were unequivocally showing reversion of malignancy - an
impossibility according to conventional dogma at that time -
and the malignant cells undergoing programmed death or
apoptosis - like normal cells do - without toxicity or any
adverse effect.
After one year of clinical trials, the authorization to proceed
with them was cancelled. The reason was that even terminal
patients were recovering from their condition without
radiation or chemotherapy - that obviously had not worked for
them - and the situation generated from these events was too
troublesome for the orthodox oncology establishment.
At that time the development of new chemotherapeutic
drugs was an activity in which large investments were
already being made, and radiation therapy, and surgery,
were already a thriving business. It certainly was not matter
of upsetting the status-quo.
An infamous persecution ensued, denigrating the activity
of these researchers they called ‘quacks’ because of using
‘herbal concoctions’ just like any vulgar, ignorant ‘country-
side healer’.
cancer treatments are in general valid only for prolonging life,
however without providing certainty about for how long.
Official approval of cancer drugs is based on their eventual
ability to provide some life extension, not on curing the disease.
It should be obvious to everybody at this time, that to eradicate
cancer an altogether different methodology needs to be
found and implemented.
Before closing this first part of my letter, I would like to offer an
example - one among who knows how many millions that
don’t come up in the news - to open the eyes of those who are
not yet aware of the high risk at which our lives are, and to put
emphasis on the urgent need to undertake action.
It is the case of Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin, Catholic Bishop
of Chicago, a noted personality who died from cancer on
November 14, 1996, at 68 years of age.
Cardinal Bernardin was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
about three years before his decease. No need to say that he
got the best medical attention available and, about three
months before passing away, he got a clean bill of health. This
event was trumpeted in the news, taking profit of the occasion
to let everybody know how effective the administered
treatments had been. About two weeks later, he underwent
some simple corrective surgery, in the process of which
several large tumors were spotted in the liver. He received
a terminal prognosis at six months; he passed away three
months later.
This is a foremost example of how inefficient conventional
methodology is, in obvious detriment of your possibilities of
survival if you have the misfortune of contracting the disease.
Where do we go from here?
We have in our hands the results of successful research on
cancer, completed more than fifty years ago, that demonstrated
that the process of carcinogenesis is reversible, that it can
be accurately detected well in advance of malignant cell-
transformation and tumor formation, and that the cancerous
organism can be thoroughly be brought back to normal,
without resorting to toxic therapeutics or physical and
physiologic maiming procedures. And that once detected at an
early stage, the causal factors can be corrected for true
prevention.
At that time, a couple of unknown researchers – a physician
and a young biochemist – undertook some investigation
with the simple initial purpose of verifying a presumption of
analgesic properties in the extract obtained from a plant
species unknown to have medicinal properties. Such
presumption had arisen from a reference in some old medical
records, about some for long forgotten aborigine tradition
attributing pain-relief properties to such plant species.
The particular interest in this natural drug was the possibility of
replacing morphine for the treatment of cancer-specific pain,
to avoid the well known adverse effects of opiates, and to
provide relief to those patients who develop tolerance
to those analgesics.
When clinical trials started in terminal patients with cancer-
specific chronic and paroxistic pain - nowadays called
‘breakthrough pain’ - the researchers were surprised to
observe that, not only did pain thoroughly vanish in all
instances, irrespective of at what stage of the disease the
patient was, and the type of cancer, but also that within a
couple of weeks - along with tumor remission that had
been already observed during pre-clinical trials in dogs - the
patients were experiencing notable improvement of their
general condition.
Those researchers could have satisfied themselves with the
simple discovery of a drug to treat cancer pain very effectively,
and make an immense fortune right away. They chose instead
to proceed with the investigation in search of explanations for
their observations.
The study of biopsies taken from patients under treatment
were unequivocally showing reversion of malignancy - an
impossibility according to conventional dogma at that time -
and the malignant cells undergoing programmed death or
apoptosis - like normal cells do - without toxicity or any
adverse effect.
After one year of clinical trials, the authorization to proceed
with them was cancelled. The reason was that even terminal
patients were recovering from their condition without
radiation or chemotherapy - that obviously had not worked for
them - and the situation generated from these events was too
troublesome for the orthodox oncology establishment.
At that time the development of new chemotherapeutic
drugs was an activity in which large investments were
already being made, and radiation therapy, and surgery,
were already a thriving business. It certainly was not matter
of upsetting the status-quo.
An infamous persecution ensued, denigrating the activity
of these researchers they called ‘quacks’ because of using
‘herbal concoctions’ just like any vulgar, ignorant ‘country-
side healer’.