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.
Surgery and radiation were the first tools available for this
purpose, until chemotherapeutics came into existence, to
assist. Other means were tried as well, amino acid therapy in
particular, that was showing to be a field of research worth
pursuing, due to absence of toxicity and adverse side-effects,
and strong evidence of efficacy.
However, amino acids cannot be patented and are rather
inexpensive. There was no promise in this field for the
pharmaceutical industry and the medical oncology community,
to make much profit out of this approach, so the interest on it
just faded away. If research would have continued in this field,
with as much support as man-made therapeutics have enjoyed,
cancer as a lethal disease would probably not exist nowadays.
But economic interests obviously prevailed.
Within the medical oncology community there are many
knowledgeable, honest practitioners, who administer
conventional treatments only because they don't have
anything else with what to confront the disease, or because in
the position they hold they are forced to.
There are many who are totally ignorant of what the nature of
the disease is, and just know how to administer the treatments,
in good faith and in the most effective way possible, and then
there are those who don't know one thing about anything and
don't care. I don't know how many there are in the first and
second groups, I want to believe that those in the third are a
minority.
Because I am acquainted with a few in the first and second
groups, I know they are generally in disagreement with the
present situation and, given the opportunity to move away from
what they have now to work with, would provide their support.
Physicians are not supposed to be researchers; they should
be able to fulfil their mission with the knowledge and tools
provided by the research community and the pharmaceutical
industry.
The problem is, research costs money, and money for research
is mostly available from official institutions and commercial
enterprises which for long have been known to have serious
conflicts of interest. The myriad so called 'non-profit
organizations' provide funds only for research that lies within
the realm of orthodoxy, therefore preventing other approaches
to be thoroughly investigated. By acting in this manner, these
organizations blatantly betray the trust that the donors put in
them when contributing.
The conductor of this orchestra is the pharmaceutical industry
as we presently know it, led by scientific research and medical
professionals whose main concern is - in general and quite
naturally - keeping their companies profitable and, in doing
so, keeping their positions and the economic benefits that
derive from them. We all know about the continual scandal of
forged and tainted proof of efficacy presented to obtain official
approval, so this shouldn't be a mystery any more, to anyone.
This is why, after so many years of research and so many
billions of dollars invested, cancer is still rampant. And yet, all
those researchers who have enjoyed having access to those
funds, keep claiming that more is needed in order to get
results, without having any intention of moving away from
what has already been proven a failure, a total failure.
Identifying the primary causes and the means to detect and
eliminate them when present, will be rewarded with success in
eradicating the disease, making useless - for all practical
purposes with regard to cancer - all research conducted to try
curing it by acting solely upon the effects, since acting
upon the effects can never eliminate the causes.
Some may say that conventional treatments ‘cure’ many, who
some time after having undergone treatment are still alive.
This is true, but this statement requires qualification.
In the first place, the percentage of cures by conventional
treatments is minimal; so minimal – about three percent
by some estimates - that if the therapeutic agents in use
would be submitted to you for approval, with true results of
clinical trials, you couldn't possibly give your consent.
Secondly, the statistics consider ‘cured’ a cancer patient
surviving for five years after the initial treatment completed.
If that patient passes away one day after that period, he/she
will still remain in the statistics as ‘cured’. In order to have
as many patients as possible alive for five years, a
chemotherapeutic agent is prescribed to be taken periodically
for up to five years, to try keeping malignancy at bay. This,
it cannot be denied, makes good business sense, too.
Third, the quality of life of surviving cancer patients is
frequently poor. Chronic pain, even if mild, is an element
frequently present that requires continual treatment, which
usually comes along with highly disturbing side effects.
So disturbing in fact, that many prefer to endure pain than
those effects.
It is of particular interest to mention, that chronic cancer pain is
not the same as acute pain; chronic cancer pain is the disease
itself, representing that survivors suffering from it are not
cured, they are just surviving. From a technical standpoint, the
presence of pain is enough to confirm that the biochemical
alterations at cause of cancer are still present. Different from
acute pain, that favors survival, chronic cancer pain is the
disease itself, and has a severe effect on the ability of cancer
survivors to live a normal life.
purpose, until chemotherapeutics came into existence, to
assist. Other means were tried as well, amino acid therapy in
particular, that was showing to be a field of research worth
pursuing, due to absence of toxicity and adverse side-effects,
and strong evidence of efficacy.
However, amino acids cannot be patented and are rather
inexpensive. There was no promise in this field for the
pharmaceutical industry and the medical oncology community,
to make much profit out of this approach, so the interest on it
just faded away. If research would have continued in this field,
with as much support as man-made therapeutics have enjoyed,
cancer as a lethal disease would probably not exist nowadays.
But economic interests obviously prevailed.
Within the medical oncology community there are many
knowledgeable, honest practitioners, who administer
conventional treatments only because they don't have
anything else with what to confront the disease, or because in
the position they hold they are forced to.
There are many who are totally ignorant of what the nature of
the disease is, and just know how to administer the treatments,
in good faith and in the most effective way possible, and then
there are those who don't know one thing about anything and
don't care. I don't know how many there are in the first and
second groups, I want to believe that those in the third are a
minority.
Because I am acquainted with a few in the first and second
groups, I know they are generally in disagreement with the
present situation and, given the opportunity to move away from
what they have now to work with, would provide their support.
Physicians are not supposed to be researchers; they should
be able to fulfil their mission with the knowledge and tools
provided by the research community and the pharmaceutical
industry.
The problem is, research costs money, and money for research
is mostly available from official institutions and commercial
enterprises which for long have been known to have serious
conflicts of interest. The myriad so called 'non-profit
organizations' provide funds only for research that lies within
the realm of orthodoxy, therefore preventing other approaches
to be thoroughly investigated. By acting in this manner, these
organizations blatantly betray the trust that the donors put in
them when contributing.
The conductor of this orchestra is the pharmaceutical industry
as we presently know it, led by scientific research and medical
professionals whose main concern is - in general and quite
naturally - keeping their companies profitable and, in doing
so, keeping their positions and the economic benefits that
derive from them. We all know about the continual scandal of
forged and tainted proof of efficacy presented to obtain official
approval, so this shouldn't be a mystery any more, to anyone.
This is why, after so many years of research and so many
billions of dollars invested, cancer is still rampant. And yet, all
those researchers who have enjoyed having access to those
funds, keep claiming that more is needed in order to get
results, without having any intention of moving away from
what has already been proven a failure, a total failure.
Identifying the primary causes and the means to detect and
eliminate them when present, will be rewarded with success in
eradicating the disease, making useless - for all practical
purposes with regard to cancer - all research conducted to try
curing it by acting solely upon the effects, since acting
upon the effects can never eliminate the causes.
Some may say that conventional treatments ‘cure’ many, who
some time after having undergone treatment are still alive.
This is true, but this statement requires qualification.
In the first place, the percentage of cures by conventional
treatments is minimal; so minimal – about three percent
by some estimates - that if the therapeutic agents in use
would be submitted to you for approval, with true results of
clinical trials, you couldn't possibly give your consent.
Secondly, the statistics consider ‘cured’ a cancer patient
surviving for five years after the initial treatment completed.
If that patient passes away one day after that period, he/she
will still remain in the statistics as ‘cured’. In order to have
as many patients as possible alive for five years, a
chemotherapeutic agent is prescribed to be taken periodically
for up to five years, to try keeping malignancy at bay. This,
it cannot be denied, makes good business sense, too.
Third, the quality of life of surviving cancer patients is
frequently poor. Chronic pain, even if mild, is an element
frequently present that requires continual treatment, which
usually comes along with highly disturbing side effects.
So disturbing in fact, that many prefer to endure pain than
those effects.
It is of particular interest to mention, that chronic cancer pain is
not the same as acute pain; chronic cancer pain is the disease
itself, representing that survivors suffering from it are not
cured, they are just surviving. From a technical standpoint, the
presence of pain is enough to confirm that the biochemical
alterations at cause of cancer are still present. Different from
acute pain, that favors survival, chronic cancer pain is the
disease itself, and has a severe effect on the ability of cancer
survivors to live a normal life.
2
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |