The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (132 page)

Radiotherapy likewise is equally, if not more deadly.
 
One person who chose to have treatment with the radiation machine turned-off altogether was the Grand National winning jockey Bob Champion.
 
Convinced by the early detectors, in spite of feeling well, that he was "... likely to die of cancer of the lymph gland" he decided that he did not relish the thought of a treatment that "... could have ruined his lungs" let alone the rest of him and opted for drugs.
 
He eventually survived the treatment and the ‘lymphoma’.
 
His doctor, ‘cancer specialist’, Ann Barrett, declared "He is the only patient in my experience who has come through this disease and achieved such a high degree of physical fitness afterwards.
 
His recovery is even more remarkable when you consider that he refused to have the conventional treatment."!
 
Or not.

The plight of the ever-increasing number of parents of child cancer victims facing ‘radiotherapy’ was well illustrated in October 1993 "... after learning of the appalling side-effects of radiotherapy... her anxious mother has opted to take her to America for private treatment... 'I've been told the radiotherapy will cause brain damage knocking forty points off her I.Q... Her growth would be stunted... she would need hormones to help her growth and sexual development.
 
It is also likely she would be sterile'."
 
Further delights include bone and nerve damage, leading to amputation of limbs, severe burns and of course, death, at a future time, from cancer and leukaemia due to the highly carcinogenic, immune-suppressive effects of the huge doses of radiation.

"Chemotherapy and radiotherapy will make the ancient method of drilling holes in a patient's head, to permit the escape of demons; look relatively advanced... the use of cobalt... effectively closes the door on cure."

The 90/95% death rate within a five year period has not stopped the cancer industry from carrying out the same procedures, day in, day out, for decades with the same deadly, inevitable results.
 
Temporarily suppressing, with the scalpel, drug or radiation, the symptoms of cancer does nothing for the victim's chances of survival.

Adding gross insult to injury, the treatment involves massive doses of carcinogens and super-poisons.
 
The patient is subject to a regime diametrically opposed to that which is needed for survival.
 
Cancer is an acceptable form of suicide for those who have lost the desire to live, this loss being a major factor in the development of the disease in the first place.
 
The great tragedy and scandal is in cases where the victim has a strong determination to live and fight but is then destroyed by the assault from the lethal, useless treatment and not by the cancer.

So why are the vast majority of doctors against alternative cancer treatments and why would they actively encourage you to undergo known-to-be-dangerous treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery instead of trying natural cures?

Unfortunately, doctors are against these treatments because from the first day of Elite-controlled medical school, they are brainwashed into believing that disease can only be effectively treated by those methods proscribed by Big Pharma.
 
They most certainly will have been led to believe that there are no cures for cancer, when in reality there are several, none of which will enhance the profits of Big Pharma or sustain the payments on a senior hospital consultant’s Bentley convertible.
 
Additionally they operate under the severely inhibiting paradox that food is good enough to keep you alive but not sufficiently good to keep you healthy or heal you when you are ill.
 

Most cancer drugs cost in the region of £25,000 per annum per patient.
 
In the US this payable either by the individual or by their health insurer (assuming they are adequately insured) whereas in the UK this is paid by the NHS (National Health Service).
 
However, whichever way, the fact is that this is the amount paid into the coffers of Big Pharma, per person, per annum and when you consider the number of people worldwide who suffer from and die from cancer each year, I am sure you can do the maths.
 
What incentive is there for any organisation whose first responsibility is always to maintain a profit for its shareholders and owners, to discover a cure?
 
I submit that there is none at all and this is the reason for the utter failure (despite the eloquent hype) of Big Pharma in their self-styled ‘war on cancer’.

We are even deceived by the so-called professionals in such seemingly beneficial activities as ‘cancer screening programmes’.
 
For example, mammograms, heavily promoted as being an integral part of the early detection of breast cancer, provably achieve nothing other than to irradiate the breast and in many cases actually cause the cancer it is supposed to be detecting.

Most doctors believe not only that what they were taught in medical school must be true, but they also believe that what they were not taught cannot be important and as a result of this are unable to comprehend anything that falls outside of their area of knowledge.
 
Most doctors are still thinking ‘inside the box’ when it comes to cancer and doctors who do think for themselves instead of regarding their learning as gospel and treat the actual cause of disease rather than the symptoms are regarded as ‘quacks’ and are subjected to huge pressure, ridicule and threats to conform.
 
One of the FDA’s modus operandi is to raid the offices of alternative thinkers and practitioners, destroying their medical records, and putting them in jail.

Additionally, some doctors are afraid of expensive, time consuming lawsuits and their insurer could well refuse to pay out if they use alternative treatments of any kind.
 
Their medical boards may fine them and even revoke their licence to practice or strike them from the medical register, effectively disbarring them from medical practice for ever.
 
Peer pressure is a huge issue too.
 
After all, doctors are only human and their colleagues will not be slow to publicly ridicule them if they use alternative treatments or are seen to be using or endorsing ‘non-conventional’ medicine.

“Doctors will continue to fail with cancer until they buck the training and accept that a patient is not some collection of malfunctioning cells but a human out of homeostasis.
 
We have cultures alive today who don’t get cancer.
 
No stress, no speed cameras, no mobile phones, no Iraq War.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe 21st century civilisation has much to commend it but there are downsides.
 
We’re a toxic society and that includes the medicines.
 
If cancer is striking 1 in 3 of us, that means something is going fundamentally wrong and we’re either going to be honest about it or continue canoeing down that long river in Egypt called De-Nial, splurfing down the rat-burgers until the meat-wagon comes to collect us.”
 
Philip Day, health researcher

Cancer Research UK spends £170 million, annually, on 3,000 research scientists whose brief is to avoid any research into holistic, naturopathic, nutritional treatments; therapies which provide the ONLY means to successfully treat a cancer victim.

“Using the guise of "established" medical science, many widely accepted studies are disseminated through medical journals and accepted as the ultimate authority by many.
 
In the case of Professor Sheng Wang of Boston University School of Medicine Cancer Research Center, his cancer research was found to be misconducted, fraudulent and contain altered results.
 
What is unsettling is the fact that his research had been previously accepted and used as a cornerstone from which to base all subsequent cancer research.”
  
Andre Evans.
 
Activist Post, 19th October 2011

“The American Cancer Society was founded by the Rockefeller family to act as a propaganda outlet and public relations tool to suck in money and help promote pharmaceuticals for cancer ‘therapy’.
 
Gary Null did a fantastic exposé on who and what the ACS is in a series of articles about 10 years ago and he often retold his experiences on the radio in coming to realize what a fraudulent outfit the ACS actually is.
 
People are simply giving aid and comfort to Big Pharma when they support the ACS.”
 
Ken Adachi, political researcher, May 2011

However, not all studies are fraudulent, but when the motivation for these doctors and professors is financial, it turns the current medical paradigm into a war zone.
 
As a consumer, it is important that you undertake your own research on the harsh side effects of traditional cancer treatment methods such as chemotherapy.

There is much evidence that there are in existence literally hundreds of alternative cancer treatments which really do work.
 
Some are even of sufficient potency or are fast acting enough to effectively treat a cancer patient who has been deemed to be ‘terminal’ by his/her doctor.
 
As untold millions are pumped into the fake cancer industry that thrives on provably fraudulent research, it is important to remember that free, alternative health options do exist.
 
Utilising natural sweeteners, vitamin D therapy and eliminating artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in its many guises, are extremely simple ways to effectively prevent cancer and potentially begin reversing it.
 

It is not my intention here to relate those cures to the reader as this is outside the remit of this book.
 
It is obviously desirable that everyone become familiar with a few different working methods of preventing the disease rather than trying to affect a cure at the eleventh hour, so to speak and these preventative and curative strategies are all available in abundance on the Internet.
 
However, even should the worst happen and you are unfortunately diagnosed with cancer of some kind then it is still not too late to adopt the ‘cure rather than prevention’ approach in 90% of cases and this is true even in cases where traditional cures have been attempted and apparently failed.

Controversy has raged for years over whether mercury received through vaccines is sufficient to cause harm to children.
 
Virtually all studies absolving mercury-containing vaccines of safety deficiencies have been conducted by vaccine insiders with a financial stake in the outcome, rendering them in effect, worthless.
 

Chronic neurological disorders, especially autism, have increased rapidly during the past two decades in correlation with increases in vaccines and total mercury exposure.
 
In July 1999, CDC, the American Academy of Paediatrics and vaccine companies agreed to remove mercury from all childhood vaccines ‘as soon as possible’, but at the time of writing it still remains in 16 licensed vaccines, 5 of which are still given to infants.

CDC claims there is ‘no convincing evidence of harm’ that vaccines cause significant neurological damage or autism and cites a number of studies claiming to exonerate mercury.
 

“The studies they reference are all deeply flawed, and, as was the case with decades of ‘tobacco epidemiology,’ were deliberately manufactured to hide the truth,” Jim Moody, director of SafeMinds 

Data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink first revealed an association between mercury and brain damage, but these findings were later suppressed and the data were manipulated to exonerate thimerasol.
 
This scientific manipulation was first revealed through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, leading to a best-selling book, Evidence of Harm and to a published retraction of any “no cause” interpretation by the study’s lead author Thomas Verstraeten (who by then had left CDC for the vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline).
 
The most recent study of VSD data by Young et al. made additional findings that vaccine mercury caused not only autism but several other neuro-developmental disorders.
 
Despite criticism from the Institute of Medicine and Congress, CDC still refuses to grant access to VSD to private researchers and the Justice Department refuses to permit petitioners in Vaccine Courts access to these crucial data.