| www.breastcancer-cured.com |
| Breast Cancer - Cured Women for Breast Cancer Truth |
|
| LECTURE 5 |
Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen,
This will enable me to meet American colleagues whom, so far, I only know through phone conversations. I look forward to these meetings with great pleasure. Thank you again.
published an article in Rome of similar content, and I must have done a good job, because, as a result, there had been an attempt to drag me to court and sue me. Fortunately, the judge dismissed the case. Afterwards, I have received some threatening emails. So, you see, these ideas have been around for awhile, but I think this is a good time to bring them up again, and perhaps develop them into an action plan.
United States.
oncology based on our perception of it as a medical specialty. It is, of course, a branch of the medical profession, and the primary concern of its members should be the health and well-being of their patients. However, if we choose this premise as our starting point, our inquiry would lead us to utter confusion.
oncology; the manner in which it functions, its goals, its policy and its ideology. Yes, surprising as it may seem, oncology has its own goals, it has a corporate policy, and it is guided by the principles of a well defined, if not easily recognised, ideology. If we approach it this way, we find that orthodox oncology is a corporate business model. As such, its strategy is brilliant, its methods very successful, and its principles utterly ruthless. We must forget that we are dealing with physicians, because they, themselves, have chosen to forget it a long time ago. Every oncologist is a corporate executive, a marketing and public relation representative of a corporate enterprise.
scenario fall into place, and become understandable.
the market needs. It is not a humanistic enterprise. Its main concern is similar to that of the disease it is supposed to treat: It wants to grow, and spread, until it engulfed the whole social organism. And, similarly to cancer, it alienates itself from the host body, that is, society, to pursue its own specific objectives. It is not concerned about public health; it has its own agenda. This is a medical group that somewhere along the line left behind the Hippocratic oath. It is a quaint myth that medical doctors solemnly swear not to do harm. They don't do that since many decades.
category, and still growing in leaps and bounds. As a business, it is in very good health. When a commercial enterprise reaches such dizzying heights, all moral considerations tend to become abstract, unrealistic concepts. The reality, the central factor on which all members must concentrate is the principle of the corporate profit, translated into very generous individual shares. This is the oncological corporate ideology, and it has proven itself to be very successful.
other corporation, it wants to see its market grow, it wants to ensure as much repeat business as possible, and it wants to establish the highest possible profit on its services and goods. With a legitimate business, this is as far as the definition goes. With oncology, something else has been added.
methods are legal, but not in the traditional sense of the term. The cancer establishment managed to purchase legal immunity in the guise of approval and legality for protocols that are obsolete, ineffective, and cancer causing. This is not a personal observation. In the course of this lecture, we will take a close look at the matter. To simplify things, we will limit our analysis to the field of breast cancer treatment. Breast cancer behaves like an epidemic; it is the fastest growing disease among women in industrialized countries.
treatment, and follow-up monitoring. Let us examine each area both from the medical and from the corporate point of view, and we will find that what makes no sense at all medically, makes excellent sense financially. We will also realize that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the needs of cancer patients, and the corporate objectives of oncology.
oncologist, these are alien concepts. The only tool of prevention that is recognized by oncology is screening. And here we arrive at an interesting situation.
very precise, and we apply this preventive technique among women from an early age, let's say, 14 years of age, then something quite remarkable would happen. Within a single generation, even sooner, breast cancer would be wiped out as a life threatening disease. It would be detected at a microscopic level, when it is only an immature, preliminary formation, and dealt with as easily as one deals with a mild cold.
concerned. If we succeed to prevent cancer, we also eliminate one of the world's most lucrative medical enterprises. Anyone who believes that a trillion dollar corporate giant is going to let that happen without a fight, is incredibly naive.
dying of cancer, from the moment of diagnosis till the moment of death, is around 2-300 thousand dollars. There are millions of Americans at various stages of cancer. Some in intensive care, some under periodic maintenance treatments, but all within a system where every day, every hour, every move and gesture costs a small fortune. Do your arithmetics, and you will arrive at astronomical figures, similar to the profits of oil companies, car manufacturers, and defense contractors.
screening accordingly. The procedure must be unreliable, it should, preferably, be cancer causing, and profitable. It should not be able to detect cancer earlier than the stage where it is already sufficiently advanced to require surgery, high dose chemotherapy and radiation.
anything but a joke. It is dead serious. It has been implemented a long time ago. The method is being hailed as the saviour of women. Regulatory agencies have approved its use, politicians make speeches about its benefits, and oncologists promote it as an essential test for all adult women, at all ages. The method is called mammography, and the procedure, a mammogram.
by the cancer industry), the mass media, and the medical establishment all sing praises of it. Medical analysts, statisticians, research scientists and courageous physicians all over the world are condemning it as a profit driven, harmful and counterproductive medical hoax. So, the question is, how can a medical procedure, like mammography, survive and prosper?
because they are beneficial, but because the regulators and law makers have been bought. The public is flooded with expert advice concerning the advantages of regular screening, and the dangers of not participating in the mammograph program. They are citing studies that are flawed and doctored, and they tell women that their chances of survival depend on undergoing mammogram examinations.
favorable to mammography, are generously funded and rewarded. Scientific papers that prove its dangers and shortcomings are suppressed, their authors labeled as quacks or worse, and a never ending line of highly placed experts are quoted in support of the practice. Meetings, marches and drives are organized in the name of breast cancer awareness, all directed towards the promotion of mammography. Women are told in no uncertain terms that if they refuse the screening, it will be their own fault if they develop breast cancer. The fact that this is absolute nonsense, and nothing but a corporate marketing scheme, cannot be explained to the public, partly because nobody is willing to finance such a publicity campaign, and partly because the mass media rejects anything that is against mammograms. The politically correct, financially rewarding, and socially accepted viewpoint, driven home by the awesome power of the medical establishment, is that mammograms save women's life, and anyone who is against mammography is against women.
together an open debate with the proponents of the protocol, but they refused to participate. Of course, they know well that they wouldn't stand a chance. Mammography causes the rupture of blood vessels and cancer cell clusters in the breast, causing instant metastasis, it submits women to cumulative radiation that causes 10 to 20% higher rate of cancer among them in the course of a 10 year period, it has a rate of 30 to 40% error in cancer detection, and causes countless cases of completely needless biopsies and mastectomies with its false positive readings. This is a very dangerous medical procedure that should be declared illegal everywhere. Instead, it is hailed as the greatest hope in the fight against breast cancer.
corporate business model's point of view, it makes perfect sense, as long as you are willing to adopt a completely ruthless approach towards the patients. Our oncologists made that choice, and the industry prospers. This choice, as we will see, is not rooted in any malicious intent towards women, or towards the public in general. It is a business choice. It measures the welfare of the patient against the welfare of the corporate entity, and makes a choice in favour of the corporate side. That is all. Nothing sinister, just plain business sense, not different from selling arms to third world countries, polluting the environment, or putting toxic sweeteners into soft drinks.
advantages is that it cannot detect cancer at an early stage. By the time mammogram recognises the presence of a malignancy, it is too late for easy solutions. A positive reading is almost always followed by surgery and chemotherapy, which makes sense, because that is where the money is.
condition of breast cancer patients. It cannot detect cancer at a microscopic level, so by the time the recurrence is discovered, the cancer becomes a very serious threat. This necessitates a dramatic response, like mastectomy, removal of lymph nodes, high dose chemotherapy, and other heroic measures. This is where the situation becomes truly profitable, truly lucrative. Thus, mammography, as a widely practiced screening and monitoring technique, prevents cancer from being detected too early, and also prevents the early detection of its recurrence. No wonder it became the darling of the cancer industry. A large percent of oncological revenue depends on the lack of its efficacy, and on its harmful attributes.
nothing better available, is there? The answer is, yes, there are several better methods available, but I am only going to mention the one that is the most practical for breast cancer patients. It is called thermography, and it is able to detect cancer formation at the molecular level, 8-10 years before the cancer would show up in standard tests. Thermography is approved in your country by the FDA since 1982, it is no more expensive than a mammogram, it is very accurate, and it is non-invasive, gentle and harmless. No radiation and no drugs are involved. It is also suppressed very successfully by the medical establishment. If you ask an oncologist which method should be chosen, he will say that thermography has not been put through clinical trials (not true, how did it achieve approval?), that it is a dubious procedure (what does that mean?), and it cannot give any information to the doctor that mammograms cannot do better(absolutely false). It is interesting to note that the wide acceptance and utilization of thermography would put an end to the concept of 5-year survival. When you can detect cancer 10 years before it causes clinically observable symptoms, it stands to reason that it will be taken care of long before it can develop into a tumor. Once the patient is declared clear of cancer by a thermograph test, and the same test is showing negative results as it is repeated once a year, the 5-year survival concept loses its meaning. Both the patient and the doctor will know that the patient will be free of cancer worries for the rest of her life. This would deal a devastating blow to medical oncology as we know it today.
from chemotherapy. It is a protocol that has been fine tuned to pull the most revenue out of the insurer or the taxpayer. What do we find, when we take a close look at the scary scenario of chemotherapy? In Italy, it is a fine mess. Here, in the United States, it has been reported in newspapers and journals, and discussed in congressional hearings that 75% of the average American oncologist's revenue comes from the resale of chemotherapeutic drugs used in cancer therapy. It has also been established in independent university studies (Harvard and Michigan) involving thousands of cases, that the vast majority of oncologists prefers to chose the drugs that pay the highest commission, regardless of the benefits to the patient. What a perplexing behavior for doctors; what a sensible attitude for a shrewd businessman!
most lucrative deception ever perpetrated by organized medicine. It doesn't cure cancer; it suppresses it, while damaging the body and its immune system in very dangerous, occasionally lethal ways. High dose chemotherapy causes immune suppression, brain damage, injury to the heart muscles, leading to cardiac arrest, etc. It causes horrific side effects, which should warn any sane person that something is very wrong with the treatment. The one thing chemotherapy doesn't accomplish is the elimination of cancer; it hasn't been designed to achieve that. It is an obscenely expensive procedure that ensures the recurrence of cancer within a shorter or longer period of time. Thus, the corporate desire of turning every case into a repeat business is fulfilled. Just treating the various damages and resulting health problems during and after chemotherapy provides oncology with significant further revenues. It is a devastating process for the patient, but a very satisfying enterprise from the corporate point of view.
towards breast cancer is based on several falsehoods. To put it simply, the oncologist is lying to his or her patients. With these lies, and with the standard treatments based on them, we are condemning breast cancer patients to mutilation and death. What lies?
fundamental lie.
normal and cancerous alike." This is the second pillar of oncological falsehood. It is a lie, and we know so since many decades.
standard treatment, yet they are harmless and non-traumatic. They selectively target cancer cells, and do not, I repeat, do not poison healthy cells. Such treatments are legally and openly offered by medical doctors, medical oncologists, and naturopathic oncologists at a number of private clinics and medical offices in the United States and Canada, although very few patients have ever heard of them. Needless to say that the oncological community declares them quacks and hoaxsters. This is an important fact to consider, because it has far reaching consequences.
and legal tools at its disposal a harmful, scientifically flawed treatment modality, while actively suppressing and publicly condemning effective and harmless protocols. As a result of this policy, over 600 thousand cancer patients died needlessly in the United States in 2006. In the same year, 1.3 million new patients were diagnosed with the disease. This number, a major victory of oncological corporate planning, is the direct result of the suppression of effective and precise cancer screening among the American population. This is not an opinion, but a hard scientific fact. If we analyse the legal and social implications of this medical practice, it leads us to an uncharted, but very intriguing area. The members of corporate medicine, both at the clinical and the executive level, feel safe and secure. As long as they do everything by the book, regardless how the contents of that book have been created and legalized, they cannot be made accountable for the tragic results of their deeds, either individually or collectively. This shield of security, combined with a generous revenue, a guaranteed market share, and the status of being highly respected professionally and socially, lend a very comfortable and secure feeling to the members of corporate medicine. How well justified is that feeling?
medical racketeering. However, oncology as a hostile, self serving enterprise may be much more vulnerable than its perpetrators imagine.
advances. New techniques, new equipment and new discoveries place progressive oncology far above the level of the allopathic medical practice. Quietly, without fanfare, the cancer care scenario is undergoing revolutionary changes. For example, it is not widely known that there are 10 states in the USA and 5 provinces in Canada - and the number is constantly growing - where naturopathic physicians have the legislated right to give intravenous treatments. Even less people are aware of the fact that in 2004 a new specialty has been established in the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians: Naturopathic Oncology.
States for a naturopath to diagnose and treat cancer. It is now possible to change oncology from a medical monopoly, restricted to allopathic medicine, to a field that is open to integrative oncologists. This lifts it out from the charter of the AMA and the jurisdiction of the FDA and places it equally under the authority of integrative/naturopathic practice.
their methods will be protected by their legal rights. Tightly controlled clinical trials are being prepared as we speak, and once the results are published, allopathic oncology will find itself fighting for its very existence. What does this mean to the investment community?
medicine, without legal battles and without public confrontation. There is no need to prove the superiority of non-toxic breast cancer treatments over the disastrous practice of allopathic oncology. Once the new treatments are offered to the public, the rest will be history. It is beyond the scope of this lecture to go into strategic details, but let me assure you that the field of cancer care, in North America, and everywhere else, will soon undergo a profound change. In the second world war France relied on a defensive system called the Maginot line. This defensive fortification system was regarded as the heaviest and most powerful chain of defensive structures ever built. The Germans didn't attack it; they went around it, and conquered France. Something similar will happen to the awesome entity called allopathic oncology. It will be abandoned by its patients, without any confrontation, without accusations and courtroom battles.
importantly, it is preventable. The cancer treatment of the future will happen in small clinics, or in the offices of holistic and naturopathic physicians. Toxic chemotherapy and mastectomy will become a thing of the past, remembered with a shudder. Chains of small clinics will spring up, some perhaps in the form of franchise operations, specializing on specific cancers, and offering highly advanced, effective protocols. There will be competition, and the cure rate will get closer and closer to 100%. The treatments will be non-toxic, and the cost will be a fraction of the present allopathic prices. Eventually, the insurance industry will be forced to recognize the treatments, and cover them in their policies.
happening. Orthodox oncology as a medical specialty will collapse and disappear, and neither political clout, not billions of dollars will save it.
hear your comments and opinions. If you have questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my capabilities.
|