Di seguito tutti gli interventi pubblicati sul sito, in ordine cronologico.
 
 

Q: You’ve published a lot of research and articles on medical marijuana. What influence has it had on your medical training?

I’m in my fourth year of residency and I see it becoming more and more relevant to my resident life as I go along. I’m also educating my peers about cannabis, because it’s relevant to my field, rehabilitation medicine, as well as pain management and palliative care – and those are all things that I’m interested in.

Next year, after I finish here in New York, I’m going to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a one year fellowship.

It’s the largest research hospital in the world and another place, like New York, where it’s too bad that a simple cannabis botanical is so hard to study and use. That’s something I’m interested in trying to question and push.

Of course, since the NIH is the heart of the federal system and the federal government considers cannabis a Schedule I drug – meaning it has no recognized medical use – it just creates a big political headache for them.

It’s really sad that they put politics ahead of science, even at the world’s largest research hospital.

Q: How is cannabis relevant to the field of rehabilitation/palliative medicine?

Most of the highest level of clinical evidence for cannabis – either inhaled or orally ingested – is for the palliation of certain diseases.

For example, pain and nausea in cancer, appetite loss and wasting in HIV/AIDS, and spasticity in multiple sclerosis. If these patients were to receive cannabis in the real world, a palliative doctor could be the one doing that. For these serious, life-limiting illnesses, cannabis has been shown to be effective.

And there’s a lot of other data – lower level, but still really compelling – for other palliative indications too.

The other interesting thing is the area of actually dying.

When you’re in a hospice and you have 6 months to live, is it possible for cannabis to be used? Let’s say you have pain and still want to be present with your loved ones before you pass away. Is it possible to not be completely sedated and looped out on opioids by adding cannabis into the mix?

Those are some of the topics I’ve covered in my work. In some of these cases, you don’t really need a whole stack of clinical trials. It just makes sense – it’s reasonable to do and we should just do it and have it available.

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine actually gave me an award earlier this year at their annual meeting for my poster on cannabinoid medicines. Several of my articles have also been accepted in palliative journals.

Q: Does it have potential in other areas of medicine as well?

Of course, cannabis also has disease modifying potential. It’s not just palliative, it’s also curative.

I think some really interesting stuff is coming out in that area. It’s not just like we can potentially help with your MS [multiple sclerosis] pain, but maybe we can slow your MS down. That’s very exciting.

There are many promising areas. Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s documentary covered its potential in treating a lot of cancers, and there’s neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, recovery from stroke and brain injuries, inflammatory bowel disease, etc.

Q: Cannabis seems to be quite popular in pain management. How does it compare with other pain drugs?

It’s very variable. In some types of pain like in post-operative settings, THC didn’t seem to be as effective as other traditional opioids used. But I’ve also seen other studies of acute pain where they said that THC was just as effective as codeine.

In chronic pain, it’s really interesting. For example, in HIV neuropathy – a special type of pain in the nerves that HIV patients get – there are a number of studies where cannabis has been tested in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled fashion. Turns out that when you compare all the other treatments that we know of in the world and have been studied in this condition, cannabis beats them.

It has what is called a lower number needed to treat (NNT), which is a term we use in evidence-based medicine for the number of patients that need to be treated to achieve a positive response in just one. The NNT for herbal cannabis in HIV neuropathy is the lowest of all studied therapeutic interventions for that condition. So for that particular condition, we have the best evidence that cannabis is the most effective.

There are also studies that have been done involving experimental pain in healthy people and then they give them herbal cannabis cigarettes of various strength verses placebo to see if their pain has gone down or not.

Turns out there’s kind of a ‘Goldilocks’ phenomenon. In some of the higher potency preparations patients report increased pain, in lower preparations they report a little bit of pain relief and in the medium dose they report superior pain relief.

So there are some cases where less is more – if you take less, you have better pain relief. So dosing does matter.

In terms of chronic, difficult-to-treat pain conditions, I think Dr. Donald Abrams has said that if you can get greater than 30% relief of pain, you’ve met a certain standard. And cannabis has been shown to achieve that standard in nerve pain.

What’s really amazing – you’ll see in those studies – sometimes just after one puff, patients’ pain scores will drop by something like 70 to 80%. It’s quite remarkable, although I’m not talking about aggregate analysis, but by individual. Then again, medicine is about taking care of the individual person. So for those people, cannabis is working like no other drug that they’ve taken before. It’s very promising.

Q: What do you think about the criticism that medical marijuana has received because of the large number of prescriptions written for pain?

People who say that have no good training in medicine. Because once you dig into the patients’ charts, look at their histories and examine them – you understand the correlations.

But there’s certainly a physiological dimension of pain, and I think there are ways of treating pain without drugs. So it’s certainly not the only way to treat pain, but it’s certainly a lot less toxic to the body than other stronger medicines. You can’t die from it, whereas you have this massive epidemic of people dying from other pain medicines.

Pain is not taken seriously as a legitimate condition. In many of these states in the U.S. where cannabis has recently been legalized for medical use, they’ve been excluding pain as a diagnosis because of the politics of pain.

I think it’s a sad testament. I mean some people will fake pain, but that’s been happening forever. But the vast majority of people will not do that and you can’t punish the vast majority of people because of a few.

Eventually, people won’t feel the need to pretend they’re in pain to see a doctor. Their government will have figured out that if people want to use this and they’re adults than it’s probably okay, because we let them use alcohol and tobacco anyway and this is probably safer for them.

Q: Not many doctors are outspoken about their support for medical marijuana. Why is that?

The fact is there have been more than 10,000 physicians in the U.S. who have participated in medical cannabis programs – who are treating their patients and authorizing their patients to use it.

I think being a doctor is a conservative profession. I think it has become the way that we use what’s in our pharmacies. How do you take care of patients? Well, what do we have? That’s how we take care of them [laughs].

It’s sort of a necessity thing. There aren’t a lot of doctors out there trying to look for new drugs. We use what we’ve learned – or are learning now from pharmaceutical reps who come and say (x) is now available.

But with Dr. Gupta coming out and everything – it’s certainly changed my own father’s attitude, who is a physician and was pretty much neutral or on the negative side of it. But having seen a very established, prominent neurosurgeon coming out in favor of it has changed his view.

And if there is some value to my speaking and writing, I’ll keep doing that because I think there is a lot of good we can do with it if we’re responsible.

Q: Is there anything being taught in medical school about marijuana and the endocannabinoid system?

I started medical school in ’02. There were a few mentions, I have to say, in my curriculum of endocannabinoid signaling.

Certain professors would bring it up in reference to G-protein coupled receptors in the retina or the brain. And someone else would mention it in terms of chronic pain syndromes. Now that I recall, neither of those professors were MD’s, they were Ph.D’s.

There was one professor who was an MD/Ph.D – a psychopharmacologist – who mentioned it. He was just talking about the usual marijuana abuse stuff and how it works through the CB1 receptors.

But nobody is saying this is a widespread, homeostatic modulatory system which has the most prevalent neurotransmitter in the brain on a per second basis and regulates mood, appetite, memory, pain, inflammation, muscle relaxation, bone remodeling, reproduction, etc.

You could do that. You could teach that, but so what? How can I use that in my practice? Well, you can prescribe a medicine that your patients can’t get access to [laughs].

Actually, that’s not even true. You can also stimulate the endocannabinoid system through running, osteopathic treatments, and acupuncture. It could be understood in a much more widespread fashion, so there is definitely a huge gap there to fill. That’s why I’ve been publishing papers and I’ve written some textbook chapters, but there has to be more thorough curricular work done.

I think doctors are also going to learn a lot of this from their own patients – it’s coming from both directions.

The public has sort of been forced to learn about it as well, so it’s not just about training the doctors. If cannabis can also be available without prescription or if people can use it on their own without having to go see a doctor without a prescription, the public will have their own incentive to learn as responsible health consumers.

So I think it’s going to be both parties – patients and doctors – that will have to get up to speed.

Q: What do you see yourself being involved with in the future?

It really depends a lot on what happens in the next two years and where we are policy-wise.

I think I’ll always have one foot in some sort of academic setting because you can ask certain questions and be involved with furthering knowledge and also have access to research funds and staff.

But I’m also interested in policy. Not just being a clinician, but also being a person that helps to guide how people can set these programs up or make cannabis more easily available – and changing international laws so that in other countries in the world it can be more available.

I’m also interested in the availability of other medicines in general. Opioids are actually important too, but they’re extremely hard to get in other parts of the world where people have severe pain that cannabis isn’t going to be the only thing that can help.

Another one of my interests is psychedelic medicine – like the therapeutic potential of psychedelic mushrooms – but that’s a whole other discussion. It’s another drug or botanical that’s gotten a severely bad rap and is also classified as Schedule I.

One of the things I’m really trying to get my mind around is the whole spiritual use of cannabis, because I think there’s something about the human-environment relationship that gets neglected in these discussions.

That is to say that cannabis is a plant and humans have been interacting with plants for eons. It’s a member of the plant kingdom and how humans connect to the plant kingdom is going to be increasingly important – especially in this day and age of global warming and fossil fuel burning.

We’ve got to get more green. Anything that can help facilitate the human-plant relationship might have some spiritual or holistic angle. I want to try and foster that kind of thinking, although I’m not sure about how just yet.

Dr. Sunil Aggarwal is a graduate of the MD/Ph.D program at the University of Washington and is currently in his last year of residency at a large academic medical center in New York City. He is the author of a number of research papers on medical marijuana, which are compiled on his website.

Dr. Aggarwal is also a board member of Americans for Safe Access Foundation, Patients Out of Time, and the Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy

Source: LeafScience.com

Cancer scientists have recently turned their attention to a class of chemicals called cannabinoids. While marijuana is a well known source of cannabinoids – including THC and CBD – the body also produces some of its own.

The team, led by Barbara Adinolfi, Ph.D, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Pisa’s Department of Pharmacy, conducted experiments using one of these natural cannabinoids, anandamide (AEA), and human melanoma cells.

Their findings, published online in the European Journal of Pharmacology, showed anandamide had a toxic effect on cancer cells – even in small doses.

Overall, these findings demonstrate that AEA (anandamide) induces cytotoxicity against human melanoma cells in the micromolar range of concentrations.

Interestingly, the role of endocannabinoids – ‘endo’ stands for endogenous (i.e. made by the body) – in controlling cancer is not a new discovery.

As the authors note, endocannabinoids have been shown to “regulate both core and emerging hallmarks of cancer.” Previous studies show that the body produces more endocannabinoids in cancer and pre-cancer states.

But very few groups have studied their action in the case of skin melanoma – one of the most aggressive human cancers, according to the authors. And while cannabinoids seem to have a general anticancer effect against many cancers, their mechanisms of action have not been consistently identified.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that natural and synthetic cannabinoids are efficacious in reducing cancer progression, although the observed effects are complex and sometimes contradictory.

In the latest study, the authors were able to pinpoint mechanisms involved with anandamide’s anticancer activity. Unsurprisingly, activation of pathways that facilitate the effects of marijuana, CB1 receptors, played a major part.

While more studies need to be done, cancer researchers have been looking at ways of increasing natural cannabinoid levels or delivering plant-derived cannabinoids to targeted areas as new cancer therapies.

Skin cancer is often treatable with surgery, but more aggressive forms can spread quickly and are known to be resistant to traditional chemotherapy.

The study was published ahead of print and received funding from the Italian Anti-melanoma Association

Source: LeafScience.com

The study, published online in the urology journal BJUI, also helps to explain the relief of bladder symptoms observed in multiple sclerosis patients who take cannabis-based medicine.

The present findings suggest that CB1 receptors are involved in peripheral and central nervous control of micturition [urination].

CB1 receptors are activated by a compound in marijuana called THC, which creates the high that users experience. While mostly concentrated in the brain, CB1 receptors are also found in lower amounts throughout the body, including the bladder.

A group of international investigators, led by Dr. Claudius Fullhase of Ludwig-Maximilians-University’s Department of Urology, studied mice born without these receptors and found that they had more frequent and spontaneous urination patterns compared with healthy mice.

Their bladders were also less responsive to electrical nerve stimulation, suggesting that signalling between the bladder and brain may be impaired by a lack of CB1 activity.

Writing in an accompanying commentary, Dr. Mathieu Boudes and Dr. Dirk de Ridder of KU Leuven’s Laboratory of Experimental Urology in Belgium – who were not involved with the new study – noted that the latest findings were the first of their kind.

Those results clearly suggest, for the time, a local involvement of CB1 in normal bladder function.

According to the pair from Belgium, previous studies suggest cannabinoid receptors may have a role in treating symptoms of overactive bladder and painful bladder syndrome.

Likewise, a small 2004 study found that urinary urgency, the number and volume of incontinence episodes, frequency and nighttime urination (nocturia) “all decreased significantly” in patients with advanced multiple sclerosis following treatment with whole-plant extracts of Cannabis sativa.

Dr. Boudes and Dr. de Ridder conclude that while “more evidence needs to be gathered,” drugs that target cannabinoid receptors in bladder disorders will indeed be “relevant in the future.”

The study was published ahead of print and received funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG)

Source: LeafScience.com

Israel is one of the few countries that have legalized medical marijuana. Today, the country’s medical marijuana program includes 12,000 patients, up from less than 2,000 in 2008.

The secret to its growth seems to be research involving actual cannabis users, which is cutting-edge compared to most parts of the world. In the past year, researchers in Israel have published studies confirming the effectiveness of marijuana in treating Crohn’s and Parkinson’s disease.

This has made Israel a key location for international groups such as California-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). While the organization’s interests span various psychedelic substances – including MDMA and mushrooms – MAPS’ work on marijuana inspires hope in the many who believe in its potential to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

One of these persons is Mimi Peleg – a clinical research associate with MAPS who worked on a study involving the use of cannabis as a treatment for 30 Israeli combat veterans. The study is currently being reviewed for publication, but showed “promising” results, Peleg told SALON in a recent interview.

We took 30 combat veterans with treatment-resistant PTSD and gave them cannabis over time, and did testing before, during and after.

Outside of research, Peleg also serves as the Director of Large Scale Training at the Medical Cannabis Distribution Center (MECHKAR) – a licensed marijuana supplier that serves thousands of patients from Israel’s Abarbanel Hospital.

She says despite the red tape involved with becoming a marijuana patient, there are currently about 200 patients in Israel approved to use cannabis for PTSD. And that number is on the rise.

Continue to read on LeafScience.com

Those who suffer from migraines may be familiar with a family of drugs known as Triptans.

While once thought to exert their effects by regulating serotonin levels, a team from the University of California’s Department of Neurology believe the headache relievers may be working via natural cannabinoids (endocannabinoids) as well.

Lead investigator Simon Akerman, Ph.D explained his latest findings to us in an interview.

What it indicates is that endocannabinoids are naturally involved with the brain’s modulation of pain mechanisms.

Published last month in The Journal of Neuroscience, the researchers conducted experiments on rodent models and found that drugs that mimic the effects of THC, in specific areas of the brain, were able to reduce pain signals known to play a role in headaches.

Interestingly, the effects were reversed when the researchers administered a drug that blocks the pathways that Triptans are known to act on.

Part of what we wanted to do was to demonstrate this endocannabinoid mechanism is modulated by drugs which were already used as a treatment for migraine. It looks like these receptor systems, in essence, talk to each other already, further implicating that endocannabinoid modulation may be involved with the pathophysiology of migraine.

While cannabinoids have been shown to have wide-ranging effects on pain, their role in migraines is lesser known. Part of it comes from the complexity of the disorder as well as the involvement of the brain itself.

We think that part of the problem with migraineurs is that certain areas of the brain are slightly different in how they process and modulate this nociceptive information.

But the latest findings suggest that cannabinoids may contribute to this difference, by affecting pain systems between the brainstem and trigeminal nerve.

What we’re hypothesizing is the fact that this dysfunction may alter the way in which the endocannabinoid system is modulating the information coming from the face and the head.

While Triptans are the most common class of migraine drugs, their effects only provide temporary relief – and only in a portion of all headache sufferers.

Dr. Akerman says while more research needs to be done, the hope is that a clearer understanding of how the cannabinoid system affects migraines may lead the way to more lasting treatments.

The study received funding from the Wellcome Trust and Sandler Family Foundation

Source: LeafScience.com

Cannabinoids are a class of chemicals found in marijuana. They’re also the main ingredients in cannabis-based treatments for multiple sclerosis (MS), such as Sativex.

But so far, cannabinoids are only recognized for their ability to manage symptoms of the disorder, according to U.S. researcher Yumin Zhang, MD, Ph.D, who also points to their psychoactive effects as a major drawback.

The THC compound is certainly already being used in Canada and several European countries. They have some effects in pain and spasticity. But for these exogenous cannabinoids, there is always concern about the side effect.

As a result, scientists like Dr. Zhang have begun to investigate a variety of synthetic cannabinoids – hoping to mimic the protective effects of marijuana-derived compounds while reducing their psychoactivity.

But studies continue to suggest that this may be a difficult goal to achieve.

Published online in the journal Neuroscience, Dr. Zhang and colleagues from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences decided to further clarify the different roles of cannabinoid pathways in a mouse model of MS.

While CB1 receptors are responsible for the high associated with marijuana, CB2 receptors have no psychoactive effect and are thus the primary focus of new cannabinoid therapies.

But like many before, the study concluded that it was CB1 activity, not CB2, that “contributes significantly to the anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects of cannabinoids in MS.”

Indeed, the potential for cannabinoids to protect neurons from MS-related damage has inspired hope for treatments that can cure, or at least slow, the degenerative disorder.

Dr. Zhang says some synthetics like CB52 – one of the cannabinoids used in the latest study – have shown promising results in early stage research. However, it is difficult to distinguish its therapeutic effect from its potential side effects, because CB52 acts on both CB1 and CB2 receptors.

Using this compound, we found that in in vitro studies, certainly they have a better effect compared to other compounds. That’s one of the reasons why we use this. But I still don’t know the potential for this particular drug to be used in clinical studies. I think any drug, if used at a certain high dose, always has a side effect.

After conducting a number of studies involving cannabinoids and MS models, Dr. Zhang concedes that it may be more ideal to target both CB1 and CB2 receptors instead of only CB2.

But he hopes that new drugs can improve on the effectiveness of traditional cannabinoids.

“I still think that maybe both CB1 and CB2 receptor activation should be more ideal,” Dr. Zhang says.

“The important thing is how to really enhance the protective effect and at the same time reduce the side effects. Augmentation of the endogenous levels of cannabinoids might be an alternative and a better approach for the treatment of MS, and possibly other neurological diseases.”

The study was published ahead of print and received funding from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Defense Medical Research and Development Program and the Uniformed Services University

Source: LeafScience.com

La realtà che si nasconde sotto la proibizione di questa pianta è qualcosa di assolutamente impressionante e sconvolgente, con una portata storica che condiziona in modo determinante la vita quotidiana di tutti noi. Compreso coloro che non hanno mai nemmeno visto uno spinello da vicino.


Conosciuta fin dall'antichità come pianta miracolosa, come sorella dell'uomo, come dono divino, la pianta di cannabis ha sempre rappresentato per l'uomo una preziosa fonte per la produzione di tessuti, di carta, di cibo e di materiale combustibile, oltre a fornire una vastissima gamma di rimedi medicinali.

Ma da un giorno all'altro questa pianta miracolosa è diventata il frutto proibito, la radice di ogni male, la fonte di peccato, perversione e immoralità che poteva facilmente portare alla follia.

Che cosa c'era dietro a questa improvvisa demonizzazione della marijuana?


Chi era Harry Anslinger, l'uomo che fece proibire la marijuana in tutto il mondo, e chi lo finanziava nell'oscurità?

Come è cambiata la nostra storia, da quando la cannabis è stata proibita?

E' vero che la marijuana porta all'uso di droghe più pesanti, come eroina o cocaina?

Che cosa hanno rivelato, le decine e decine di ricerche governative sull'uso della cannabis?


Se la marijuana è proibita, perchè certe case farmaceutiche possono produrla nei loro capannoni segreti, lontano dagli occhi di tutti?

A chi giova davvero questa ossessiva, incessante e terrificante guerra alla marijuana?

E che cosa sta perdendo l'umanità, nel mantenere questa proibizione?

Acquista il DVD: http://shop.luogocomune.net/la-vera-storia-della-marijuana_2426564.html

We were very privileged recently to be able to speak with well-known hemp oil advocate and genuine nice guy Rick Simpson.

In fact, if you've researched hemp oil at all then you would have come across his name. His knowledge on the cannabis plant, and in particular, cannabinoids is truly remarkable. I would easily label him a world authority on the subject. He has a lot to say in this incredible and very timely interview so be sure to pay close attention.

Simply click on the video below to watch in full...

We invite you to check out Rick's phoenixtears.ca website and the phoenixtearsfoundation website (please also make a donation to this incredible cause if you possibly can). If you are on Facebook then "liking" the official Rick Simpson Facebook fan page is an absolute must!

Once again, thank you to Rick and Janet Sweeney for your time and the tremendous work you are both doing. We urge all of our readers and followers to support these two wonderful and selfless human beings and to do your part in helping to make people more aware of the amazing benefits of hemp. Please share their websites and articles with your friends as much as you can. If we are going to change the world folks, it has to start with us. There's an old saying...

"If it is to be it's up to me".

Join with us and help make a difference to the lives and suffering of people right around the world. Let's work together to get hemp fully legalized and available to every human being on the planet who want's it. When this happens (not "if" but "when"), it will surely change the world and we will all be able to look back with pride and know that each and every one of us played our part in making it happen.

Introduction & Overview by Ken Adachi .

There are a number of alternative healing therapies that work so well and cost so little (compared to conventional treatment), that The Medical Industry, the Food & Drug Administration, and their overlords in the Pharmaceutical Industry (The Big Three) would rather the public not know about them. The reason is obvious: Alternative, non-toxic therapies represent a potential loss of billions of dollars to the medical and drug companies.



The Big Three have collectively engaged in a medical conspiracy for the better part of 70 years to influence legislative bodies on both the state and federal level to create regulations that promote the use of drug medicine while simultaneously creating restrictive, controlling mechanisms (licensing, government approval, etc) designed to limit and stifle the availability of non-drug, alternative medicines. The conspiracy to limit and eliminate competition from non-drug therapies began with the Flexner Report of 1910.

Abraham Flexner was engaged by John D. Rockefeller to run around the country and ‘evaluate' the effectiveness of therapies taught in medical schools and other institutions of the healing arts. Rockefeller wanted to dominate control over petroleum, petrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals (which are derived from 'coal tars' or crude oil). He arranged for his company, Standard Oil of New Jersey to obtain a controlling interest in a huge German drug cartel called I. G. Farben. He pulled in his stronger competitors like Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan as partners, while making other, less powerful players, stockholders in Standard Oil. Those who would not come into the fold "were crushed" according to a Rockefeller biographer (W. Hoffman, David: Report on a Rockefeller {New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1971}page 24.)

All too often, politicians are prepared to enact laws that rob citizens of their constitutional freedom under the banner of "public protection". Needless to say, congress swallowed the recommendations of this report hook, line, and sinker. It was decided that the American Medical Association (AMA), would be the "doorkeeper". The AMA was now empowered to certify or de-certify any medical school in the country on the grounds of whether that school met the AMA's standards of "approved" medicine.


The AMA came into existence in 1847. It is a private organization of allopathic physicians which serves the interests of its members, especially when it comes to influencing favorable legislation. It functions in every sense of the word as a union, although its members wear white collars instead of blue. Giving the AMA the power over the certification of medical schools is the equivalent of giving the Teamsters Union the exclusive right to decide on the laws of interstate commerce and transportation. Is it any wonder that the total number of medical schools in the United States went from 160 in 1906 (before the Flexner Report) to 85 in 1920 and further down to 69 schools in 1944? A little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, no?

Not surprisingly, Flexner ‘found' that any discipline that didn't use drugs to help cure the patient was tantamount to quackery and charlatanism. Medical schools that offered courses in bioelectric Medicine, Homeopathy or Eastern Medicine, for example, were told to either drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation and underwriting support. A few schools resisted for a time, but eventually most schools cooperated (or were closed down). A similar scenario was played out in Canada. It was attempted in England against Homeopathy, but it failed due to the personal intervention of the Royal Family who had received much relief and healing at the hands of Homeopathic healers in the 19th century. By the way, the AMA was found guilty of conspiracy against chiropractors in 1987 by a federal judge and fined a couple of million dollars. Here in America, a relentless campaign of misinformation, fraud, deception, and suppression of alternative therapies and healers has been in place for the better part of this century in order to keep highly effective alternative therapies from reaching any significant plateau of public awareness. Control is exerted through "news items" and propaganda from pro-establishment organizations like The American Medical Association, The American Cancer Society, The Diabetes Foundation, etc.; local medical boards; and government agencies like the FDA, The National Institute of Health (NIH), and The National Cancer Institute (NCI), The National Academy of Science, etc. with the full cooperation of main-stream media of course .

Over the past decades, hundreds of caring, concerned, and conscientious alternative healers have been jailed and abused like common criminals for the "crime" of curing people of life-threatening diseases in an "unapproved" manner by heavy-handed government agents who swoop down on clinics with drawn guns, flax jackets, and Gestapo manners. All the while, these same agents and agencies posture themselves before TV cameras and the public under the ludicrous pretense of being servants of the people and protectors of the common good.

The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J. W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls,  N.Y., in these words:  'The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs Every practioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.'

At long last, however, the public's consciousness seems to have finally reached a critical mass and is now beginning to seriously question the efficacy and appropriateness of using orthodox therapies and allopathic medicine in general. Thank God. It's been too long overdue.


The Drug Story

Revelations about the AMA, the House of Rockefeller and the pharmaceutical industry  

"The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers." ...Morris A. Bealle

By Morris A. Bealle
 

In the 30's, Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald, was running a county seat newspaper, in which the local power company bought a large advertisement every week. This account took quite a lot of worry off Bealle' s shoulders when the bills came due. But according to Bealle' s own story, one day the paper took up the cudgels for some of its readers that were being given poor service from the power company, and Morris Bealle received the dressing down of his life from the advertising agency which handled the power company' s account. They told him that any more such 'stepping out of line' would result in the immediate cancellation not only of the advertising contract, but also of the gas company and the telephone company.

That' s when Bealle' s eyes were opened to the meaning of a 'free press', and he decided to get out of the newspaper business. He could afford to do that because he belonged to the landed gentry of Maryland, but not all newspaper editors are that lucky.

Bealle used his professional experience to do some deep digging into the freedom-of-the-press situation and came up with two shattering exposes - The Drug Story, and The House of Rockefeller. The fact that in spite of his familiarity with the editorial world and many important personal contacts he couldn't get his revelations into print until he founded his own company, The Columbia Publishing House, Washington D.C., in 1949, was just a prime example of the silent but adamant censorship in force in 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'. Although The Drug Story is one of the most important books on health and politics ever to appear in the USA, it has never been admitted to a major bookstore nor reviewed by any establishment paper, and was sold exclusively by mail. Nevertheless, when we first got to read it, in the 1970s, it was already in its 33rd printing, under a different label - Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.

As Bealle pointed out, a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 - a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property.

That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General's Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as promoters for the Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of over 200 million 'shots'. Is it any wonder, asked Bealle, that the Rockefellers, and their stooges in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy that discourage the use of drugs.

'The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation', reported Bealle, 'itemizes the gifts it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don't use therapies based on drugs.

'Harvard, with its well publicized medical school, has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller's Drug Trust money, Yale got $7 ,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York's Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, ete., etc.'

And while 'giving away' those huge sums to drug propagandizing colleges, the Rockefeller interests were growing to a world-wide web that no one could entirely explore. Already well over 30 years ago it was large enough for Bealle to demonstrate that the Rockefeller interests had created, built up and developed the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in the mind of man. Standard Oil was of course the foundation upon which all of the other Rockefeller industries have been built. The story of Old John D., as ruthless an industrial pirate as ever came down the pike, is well known, but is being today conveniently ignored. The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire was the Chase NationaI Bank, now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business. The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs. The fact that most of the 12,000 separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to the Drug Trust...

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own 'nominees' planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. So the stage was set for the 'education' of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan' s death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters - then and even more recklessly now.

'Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press associations for their national news,' Bealle pointed out, 'and there is no reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is   censored when it concerns health matters. Yet this is what happens constantly.'

In fact in the '50s the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the directorate of the Associated Press. He was no less than Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most powerful Associated Press directors.

It was thus easy for the Rockefeller Trust to persuade the Associated Press Science Editor to adopt a policy which would not permit any medical news to clear that is not approved by the Drug Trust 'expert', and this censor is not going to approve any item that can in any way hurt the sale of drugs.

This accounts to this day for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and just-around-the-corner breakthrough victories over cancer, AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, which go out brazenly over the wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad.

Emanuel M. Josephson, M.D., whom the Drug Trust has been unable to intimidate despite many attempts, pointed out that the National Association of Science Writers was 'persuaded' to adopt as part of its code of ethics the following chestnut: 'Science editors are incapable of judging the facts of phenomena involved in medical and scientific discovery. Therefore, they only report 'discoveries' approved by medical authorities, or those presented before a body of scientific peers.'

This explains why Bantam Books, America's biggest publisher, made a colossal mistake in its initial enthusiasm and optimism sending review copies of  SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT to the 3,500 'science writers' on its list, instead of addressing them to the literary book reviewers who are not  subject to medical censorship. One single censor decreed NO and SLAUGHTER OF  THE INNOCENT sank in silence.

Thus newspapers continue to be fed with propaganda about drugs and their alleged value, although according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1.5 million people landed in hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects in the U.S. alone, and despite recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous medical men that most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless at best, but more often harmful or deadly in the long run.

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.

To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn't know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children's Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given 'shots' for this and 'shots' for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.

When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no therapeutic value.

Wrote Bealle:
'Financed by the taxpayers, these Drug Trust persecutions leave no stone unturned to destroy the victim. If he is a small operator, the resulting attorney's fees and court costs put him out of business. In one case, a Dr. Adolphus Hohensee of Scranton, Pa., who had stated that vitamins (he used     natural ones) were vital to good health, was taken to court for 'misbranding' his product. The American Medical Association furnished ten medicos who reversed all known medical theories by testifying that 'vitamins are not necessary to the human body'. Confronted with government bulletins to the contrary, the medicos wiggled out of that one by declaring that these standard publications were outdated!'

In addition to the FDA, Bealle listed the following agencies having to do with 'health' - i.e., with the health of the Drug Trust to the detriment of the citizens - as being dependent on Rockefeller: U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Veterans Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Surgeon General of the Air Force, Army Surgeon General' s Office, Navy Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, National Health Research Institute, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Sciences in Washington is considered the all wise body which investigates everything under the sun, especially in the field of health, and gives to a palpitating public the last word in that science. To the important post at the head of this agency, the Drug Trust had one of their own appointed. He was none other than Alfred N. Richards, one of the directors and largest stockholders of Merck & Company, which was making huge profits from its drug traffic.

When Bealle revealed this fact, Richards resigned forthwith, and the Rockefellers appointed in his place the President of their own Rockefeller Institution, Detlev W. Bronk.

The medico drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls,  N.Y., in these words:   'The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarium who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.'

The Lincoln Chiropractic College in Indianapolis requires 4,496 hours, the Palmer Institute Chiropractic in Davenport a minimum of 4,000 60 minute classroom hours, the University of Natural Healing Arts in Denver five years of 1,000 hours each to qualify for a degree. The National College of Naprapathy in Chicago requires 4,326 classroom hours for graduation. Yet the medico drug cartel spreads the propaganda that the practitioners of these three 'heretic' sciences are poorly trained or not trained at all - the real reason being that they cure their patients without the use of drugs. In 1958, one of those 'ill trained' doctors, Nicholas P. Grimaldi, who had just graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College, took the basic science examination of the Connecticut State Board along with 63 medics and osteopaths. He made the highest mark (91.6) ever made by a doctor taking the Connecticut State Board examination.

Rockefeller' s various 'educational' activities had proved so profitable in the U S. that in 1927 the International Educational Board was launched, as Junior' s own, personal charity, and endowed with $21,000,000 for a starter, to be lavished on foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings attached. This Board undertook to export the 'new' Rockefeller image as a benefactor of mankind, as well as his business practices. Nobody informed the beneficiaries that every penny the Rockefellers seemed to be throwing out the window would come back, bearing substantial interest,
through the front door.

Rockefeller had always had a particular interest in China, where Standard Oil was almost the sole supplier of kerosene and oil 'for the lamps of China'. So he put up money to establish the China Medical Board and to build the Peking Union Medical College, playing the role of the Great White Father who has come to dispense knowledge on his lowly children. The Rockefeller Foundation invested up to $45,000,000 into 'westernizing' (read corrupting) Chinese medicine.

Medical colleges were instructed that if they wished to benefit from the Rockefeller largesse they had better convince 500 million Chinese to throw into the ashcan the safe and useful but inexpensive herbal remedies of their barefoot doctors, which had withstood the test of centuries, in favor of the expensive carcinogenic and teratogenic 'miracle' drugs Made in USA, which had to be replaced constantly with new ones, when the fatal side effects could no longer be concealed; and if they couldn't 'demonstrate' through large-scale animal experiments the effectiveness of their ancient  acupuncture, this could not be recognized as having any 'scientific value'. Its millenarian effectiveness proven on human beings was of no concern to the Western wizards.

But when the Communists came to power in China and it was no longer possible to trade, the Rockefellers suddenly lost interest in the health of the Chinese people and shifted their attention increasingly to Japan, India and Latin America.

'No candid study of his career can lead to other conclusion than that he is victim of perhaps the ugliest of all passions, that for money, money as an end. It is not a pleasant picture.... this money maniac secretly, patiently, eternally plotting how he may add to his wealth.... He has turned commerce to war, and honey-combed it with cruel and corrupt practices.... And he calls his great organization a benefaction, and points to his church-going and charities as proof of his righteousness. This is supreme wrong-doing cloaked by religion. There is but one name for it - hypocrisy. '

This was the description Ida Tarbell made of John D. Rockefeller in her 'History of the Standard Oil Company', serialized in 1905 in the widely circulated McClure's Magazine. And that was several years before the 'Ludlow Massacre', so JDR was as yet far from having reached the apex of his  disrepute. But after World War II it would have been hard to read, in America or abroad, a single criticism of JDR, nor of Junior, who had followed in his father' s footsteps, nor of Junior' s four sons who all endeavored to emulate their illustrious forbears. Today's various encyclopedias extant in public libraries of the Western world have nothing but praise for the Family. How was this achieved?

Ironically, the two apparently most NEGATIVE events in the career of JDR brought about a huge POSITIVE change in his favor, to a degree that he himself could not foresee. To wit:

In the year when according to the current Encyclopedia Britanica (long become a Rockefeller property and transferred from Oxford to Chicago), Rockefeller had 'retired from active business', namely in 1911, he had been convicted by a U.S. court of illegal practices and ordered to dissolve the Standard Oil Trust, which comprised 40 corporations. This imposed dissolution was to provide his Empire with added might, to a degree that was unprecedented in the history of modem business. Until then, the Trust had existed for all to see - an exposed target. After that, it went underground,
and thereby its power was cloaked in security, and could keep expanding unseen and therefore unopposed.

The Ludlow Massacre

The second apparently negative experience was a certain 1914 event that persuaded JDR, until then utterly contemptuous of public opinion, to gloss over his own image.

The United Mine Workers had asked for higher wages and better living conditions for the miners of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, one of the many Rockefeller owned companies.

The miners - mostly immigrants from Europe' s poorest countries - lived in shacks provided by the company at exorbitant rent. Their low wages ($1.68 a day) were paid in script redeemable only at company stores charging high prices. The churches they attended were the pastorates of company-hired ministers; their children were taught in company-controlled schools; the company libraries excluded books that the Bible-thumping Rockefellers deemed 'subversive', such as 'Darwin's Origin of the Species.' The company maintained a force of detectives, mine guards, and spies whose job it was to keep the camp quarantined from the danger of unionization.

When the miners struck, JDR, Jr., then officially in command of the company, and his father' s hatchet man, the Baptist Reverend Frederick T. Gates, who was a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, refused even to negotiate. They evicted the strikers from the company-owned shacks, hired a thousand strike-breakers from the Baldwin-Felts detective agency, and persuaded Governor Ammons to call out the National Guard to help break the strike.

Open warfare resulted. Guardsmen, miners, their women and children, who since their eviction were camping in tents, were ruthlessly killed, until the frightened Governor wired President Wilson for Federal Troops, who eventually crushed the strike, The New York Times, which then already could never be accused of being unfriendly to the Rockefeller interests, reported on April 21, 1914.

'A 14 hour battle between striking coal miners and members of the Colorado National Guard in the Ludlow district today culminated in the killing of Louis Tikas, leader of the Greek strikers, and the destruction of the Ludlow tent colony by fire.'

  And the following day.

'Forty five dead (32 of them women and children), a score missing and more than a score wounded is the known result of the 14 hour battle which raged between state troops and coal miners in the Ludlow district, on the property of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, the Rockefeller holding. The Ludlow is a mass of charred debris, and buried beneath it is a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare. In the holes that had been dug for their protection against rifle fire, the women and children died like trapped rats as the flames swept over them. One pit uncovered this afternoon disclosed the bodies of ten children and two women.'

The worldwide revulsion that followed was such that JDR decided to hire the most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough assignment of whitewashing the tycoon' s bloodied image.

When Lee learned that the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation had $100 million lying around for promotional purposes without knowing what to do with it, he came with a plan to donate large sums - none less than a million- to well known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations. The plan was accepted. So were the millions. And they made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold standard and the five cent cigar there was a maxim in every newspaper office that a million dollars was always news.

That was the beginning of the cleverly worded medical reports on new 'miracle' drugs and 'just-around-the-corner breakthroughs' planted in the leading news offices and press associations that continue to this day, and the flighty public soon forgot, or forgave, the massacre of foreign immigrants for the dazzling display of generosity and philanthropy financed by the ballooning Rockefeller fortune and going out, with thunderous press fanfare, to various 'worthy' institutions.

In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought, financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the magazine got into fInancial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial empire crumbled, the House of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life, and built for them an expensive 14 story home of their own in Rockefeller Center - the Time & Life Building.

Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time's 'rival' magazine, Newsweek, which had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and allies of the House.

For all his innate cynicism, JDR must have been himself surprised to discover how easily the so-called intellectuals could be bought. Indeed, they turned out to be among his best investments.

By founding and lavishly endowing his Education Boards at home and abroad, Rockefeller won control not only of the governments and politicos but also of the intellectual and scientific community, starting with the Medical Power - the organization that forms those priests of the New Religion that
are the modern medicine men. No Pulitzer or Nobel or any similar prize endowed with money and prestige has ever been awarded to a declared foe of the Rockefeller system.

Henry Luce, officially founder and editor of Time Magazine, but constantly dependent on House advertising, also distinguished himself in his adulation of his sponsors. JDR's son had been responsible for the Ludlow massacre, and an obedient partner in his father' s most unsavory actions. Nonetheless, in 1956 Henry Luce put Junior on the cover of Time, and the feature story, soberly titled 'The Good Man', included hyperbole like this:

'It is because John D. Rockefeller Junior's is a life of constructive social giving that he ranks as an authentic American hero, just as certainly as any general who ever won a victory for an American army or any statesman who triumphed in behalf of U.S. diplomacy.'

Clearly, Time's editorial board wasn't given the choice to change its tune even after the passing of Junior and Henry Luce, since it remained just as dependent on House of Rockefeller advertising. Thus, when in 1979 one of Junior's sons, Nelson A. Rockefeller died - who had been one of the loudest hawks in the Vietnam and other American wars, and was personally responsible for the massacre of prisoners and hostages at Attica prison - Time said of him in it obituary, without laughing:

  'He was driven by a mission to serve, improve and uplift his country.'

Perhaps it was all this that Prof. Peter Singer had in mind when telling the judges in Italy that the Rockefeller Foundation was a humanitarian enterprise bent on doing good works. One of their best works seems to be sponsoring Prof. Peter Singer, the world's greatest animal friend and protector who claims that vivisection is indispensable for medical progress and for more than 20 years refuses to mention that legions of medical doctors are of the opposite view.

Another interesting revelation in the article of Time was that many years ago already Singer 'was pleasantly surprised when Britanica approached him to distill in about 30,000 words the discipline that is, at its heart, the systematic study of what we ought to do.' So now we touch the subject of sponsorship and patronage. They don' t always mean immediate cash but, more important, long-term profits.

Many decades ago the Encyclopedia Britannica moved from Oxford to Chicago because Rockefeller had bought it to add much needed luster to the University of Chicago and its medical school, the first one he had founded. Peter Singer, 'the world's greatest animal defender' who keeps a door permanently open to vivisection and the lucrative medical swindle, gets millions of dollars free publicity thanks to the worldwide engagement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the media makers who are in no position to oppose it.

From the article in Time we also learned that Singer' s mother had been a medical doctor in the old country, which could mean that little Peter started assimilating all the Rockefeller superstition on vivisection with his mother's milk.

Taken from the CIVIS Foundation Report number 15, Fall-Winter 1993

CIVIS: POB 152, Via Motta 51-CH 6900, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland

TruthSeeker for TurismoAssociati.it - via healthmaven.blogspot.ro via yourticker.com

While researching the use of alternative therapies that were utilized by Suzanne Somers, we came across doctors and media outlets who desperately tried to malign her reputation. Their responses were so hasty that they accidentally revealed statistics that are not normally open to the public.


 
"We’re finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point, that can make some treatments look good that aren’t doing anything. Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won’t progress, the only option is to treat everyone."

 Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s Chief Medical Officer

While some people might consider 25 to 30 percent to be a relatively low percentage, this is actually much higher than their success rates for chemotherapy; particularly when you define ‘cure’ as lasting longer than 5 years. The true life-long cure rate bounces between 3 and 4 percent for orthodox treatments. When compared, 30% suddenly becomes a very impressive figure at a gain of 10 times. Of course, this number speaks only for those who supposedly do nothing at all. Alternative therapies get better life-long cure rates than 30%, but these numbers are not discussed publicly by medical officials, and rarely in private. Despite their 12+ years of doctoral education, none of them seem to know anything about the 1931 Nobel Prize for medicine, which was awarded to Dr. Otto Warburg for finding the cause of cancer, upon which most alternative therapies are based.


Why aren’t these figures ever given to patients who are diagnosed with cancer? Why are they instead told the lie that they will certainly die if they refuse chemotherapy and radiation when the opposite is usually true?

I recall a neighbor who was diagnosed with cancer from when I was a child. He was told that even with chemotherapy, he would only have six months of remaining life. Without chemotherapy, his lifespan was estimated to be weeks. He refused treatment, and he is still healthy today following his 10 years of non-treatment. He grew his own organic foods, and engaged in frequent prayer following the diagnosis. His treatment came from the great physician.

We have searched tirelessly for the success rate of those who decided to walk away from all treatments for several years, but we only found it when the American Cancer Society stumbled in its attempts to defend its bruised reputation from meekly Susan Somers. Why didn’t they publicly release those numbers before? The recovery of Suzanne Somers was obviously quite embarrassing for them, because not only is she one of many who cured herself of cancer permanently (not just 5 years of "survival"), but she also went public about her experiences with alternative treatments. Had she followed the orthodox therapies, she would have had a 96% chance of not being alive, and her protracted death would have been truly horrific.

The quotation cited earlier makes another interesting point. Doctors really have no clue which cancers will progress, and which ones will not. Therefore, we must ask if early testing is really a good idea. With early testing, not only do the tests actually stimulate cancers through radiation, cutting, and poisoning, but doctors frequently discover anomalies that would otherwise naturally disappear if left alone. They always treat those abnormalities, and the patients almost always die from those treatments eventually. People nowadays die from the treatments instead of the cancers, and this is shown in the establishment’s own statistics. Whenever the human body is exposed to chemotherapy, cancers will strike sooner or later regardless of whether they existed initially. All chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic, and they weaken all healthy cells. This is admitted in the official literature for adverse effects for all of the so-called anti-cancer medications, and massive cell destruction is officially a part of standard treatments by design. They claim that their medicines attack the weaker cancer cells, but they actually do that by attacking all of the cells, and thereby the very immune system critical for recovery.

"Two to four percent of cancers respond to chemotherapy."

— Ralph Moss, Ph.D, 1995

Keep walking for the cure, but these numbers are not going to rise much. If you happen to see a rise in orthodox cancer treatment success rates, then you can be assured that the methods of measuring cure rates have changed, not the survival rates. It is how the science of modern medicine is cooked. Just barely surviving for 5 years is actually counted as a cure, but virtually everyone who is not counted in this figure dies between the 5 and 10 year mark. It’s called "cooking the books" in accounting circles, but we call it murder. Most people are shocked when they learn that those who are killed in cancer drug trials are dismissed from the results, because they did not "complete the study". In other words, getting killed by the medicine helps the drug company’s chance in getting drug approval.

"Success of most chemotherapies is appalling… There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland."

— Dr. Uhlrich Abel

If the cancer industry were really concerned about scientific progress, then nobody would hide the statistics. Truth does not fear investigation. Instead, its numbers are repeatedly covered up, and the scientific community eliminates from its ranks anyone who refuses to accept its zealous dogma. It’s not science. It’s politics, and a very deadly form of it. The corrupt scientific community has become far more interested in politics, money, power and control than the truth, or even science itself.

Source: worldtruth.tv