As the population of Allopath grew, traffic accidents increased to an alarming level. Out of desperation, the city council hired Doctor West, a doctor of the Motor Division (M.D.) to find a solution.

Dr. West spent days examining traffic accidents. He carried an assortment of technical gear -- microscopes, chemical analysis equipment, lab gear -- and put them all to work as part of his investigation. The townspeople of Allopath watched on with great curiosity while Dr. West went about his work, meticulously documenting and analyzing each traffic accident, and they awaited his final report with great interest.

After weeks of investigation, Dr. West called the people of Allopath to a town meeting for the release of his report. There, in front of the city council and most of the residents of Allopath, he announced his findings: "Traffic accidents are caused by skid marks."

As Dr. West explained, he found and documented a near-100% correlation between traffic accidents and skid marks. "Wherever we find these cars colliding," he explained, "we also find these skid marks."
http://www.naturalnews.com/008674.html

UCSD scientists, headed by David Cheresh, MD, first knocked out genes for the creation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is a key protein in the development of new blood vessel growth.

These "knock out" mice were then bred with another strain of mouse that spontaneously develops mammary tumors. In their offspring, blood vessels did not increase as much as they would have otherwise, although the remaining vessels were organized better than expected. At the same time, the spontaneous tumors in these "anti-angiogenic" mice grew larger and were more likely to enter a more advanced stage of the disease, according to research published in the British journal, Nature (Stockmann 2008).

"Common dogma predicts that reducing VEGF makes the tumor smaller, but the tumor got larger," said Dr. Cheresh, MD, who is a professor and vice chair of pathology at UCSD's Moores Cancer Center.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/032209.html

The Horwins wanted to understand why their son died while receiving what they were told was the best treatment available, a therapy that would certainly prolong Alexanders life if not cure him. Michael Horwin, now an attorney and his wife Raphaele, now a forensic scientist, spent hundreds of hours in medical libraries. In the pages of the medical journals, they found one shocking revelation after another.

First, they discovered that none of the drugs administered to Alexander were FDA approved for children. (2) Next, they found out that none of the drugs were FDA approved for the treatment of brain tumors in any person (2).

In addition, they found out that one of the four drugs administered to Alexander (cyclophosphamide) was listed as a known human carcinogen and another (cisplatin) was listed as a probable human carcinogen(3) -- they actually caused cancer.

And finally, and most shocking of all they discovered that the same four drugs had been administered to children the same age as Alexander with exactly the same brain tumor as Alexander and that the treatments had been an utter failure (4) causing one hospital to actually terminate the therapy(5). This had happened years before Alexander was even diagnosed.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb193683.htm

The clinical benefit of these agents, especially when used alone, is small. They are mainly used in conjunction with standard chemotherapy. Some doctors (such as Stanislaw Burzynski MD, PhD) believe that when used appropriately and in combination they have greater potential than is revealed in phase III clinical trials.

But now, a new study has raised the disturbing prospect that this class of drugs might have the contradictory effect of helping tumors invade normal tissues and organs, i.e., to metastasize. It is the process of metastasis that ultimately kills most patients with advanced cancer.

"People have thought that angiogenesis-inhibiting therapy should hinder metastasis, but these studies show this is not necessarily the case," says Gabriele Bergers, PhD, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), who wrote a paper on this with coworkers at UCSF and the Catalan Institute of Oncology-IDIBELL, in Spain.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/031509.html

He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.

Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical] profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/chemotherapyreport.html

The reason is that, like the other therapies approved by orthodox medicine, surgery removes only the tumor. It does not remove the cause. The rationale behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery. The objective is to remove the tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it is primarily the non-cancer cell that is destroyed. The more malig-nant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radio therapy If this were not so, then X-ray therapy would have a high degree of success-which, of course, it does not. If the average tumor is composed of both cancer and non-cancer cells, and if radiation is more destructive to non-cancer cells than to cancer cells, then it would be logical to expect the results to be a reduction of tumor size, but also an increase in the percentage of malignancy. This is, in fact, exactly what happens.
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/hoax.html

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they don't know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/optionalmodes.html

• The PSA test, used to screen men for detecting prostate cancer has been declared all but useless by a pioneer in the procedure.
• Dr. Stamey and colleagues examined more than 1,300 prostate tissue samples removed by urologists at Stanford over the past 20 years.
• In the first five-year group, 43 percent had a prostate cancer relationship to PSA testing, that relationship dropped to only 2 percent in the most recent group.
• "Our study raises a very serious question of whether a man should even use the PSA test for prostate cancer screening any more," said Dr. Stamey, referring to his study published in the October issue of the Journal of Urology.
• In 1987, Dr. Stamey, the pioneer in PSA testing published his original findings in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that increased blood PSA levels could be used to indicate prostate cancer.
• However, now, Dr. Stamey believes the PSA test is not a useful predictor of prostate cancer, but only reflects a harmless increase in prostate size.
• Dr. Stamey also believes it's time to stop removing every man's prostate who has prostate cancer.
• "We originally thought we were doing the right thing, but we are now figuring out how we went wrong.
• All men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, said Dr. Stamey, and if there is an excuse such an elevated PSA test, a biopsy will be performed, and cancer will be found.
• But the cancer found will likely be insignificant.
• Dr. stamey recommends a yearly digital rectal exam for all men over 50, as opposed to PSA testing to detect prostate cancer.
• "If a cancer is felt in the prostate during a rectal examination, it is always a significant cancer and certainly needs treatment," Dr. Stamey said.
http://www.lifeone.org/prostate_cancer.html

Headaches are caused by a number of conditions including tension, stress, lack of drinking enough water, eating the wrong foods, caffeine-withdrawal, to name a few. Addressing THESE CAUSES is the answer to eliminating headache.

By the same reasoning, is Cancer CAUSED by a deficiency of chemotherapy or a deficiency of radiation? Of course not!

Do chemotherapy and radiation both actually CAUSE CANCER? Absolutely, yes they both do, as is well-documented in the medical literature as shown in my video "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Anymore."

Then if chemotherapy and radiation ACTUALLY CAUSE CANCER why are they used to TREAT cancer? Because doctors are not taught the real causes of cancer. In fact, they are taught that no one knows the cause of cancer.

But the cause of cancer IS KNOWN! You can even read about it in the newspapers. The Harvard School of Public Health admits that at least 65% of ALL cancers could be prevented by a change in diet and lifestyle. Actually, the figure is closer to 99% in my opinion, but still that's a great admission on their part. So there we have the cause: the wrong diet and lifestyle.

So what do we do to get well? It's NOT difficult to figure out. We GET WELL by CHANGING our diet and lifestyle!!
http://www.drday.com/crs.htm

As background, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of new drugs over the past few years that, at best, are minimally effective. Sometimes, they confer a few months of extra survival; oftentimes there is no proof that they do even that. They also may carry an increased risk of serious side effects, and in almost every case they are very expensive.

According to the Times authors, "for many such uses there is scant clinical evidence that the drugs are effective, despite costing as much as $10,000 a month." Medicare approval may therefore waste money and needlessly expose patients to the adverse effect of drugs that might hurt them, and make their final months more miserable.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/020109.html

The ANH has released its critique on the study by Dr Jennifer Lin and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School, which concludes that the lack of effects demonstrated could have been predicted before the start of the 8-year study involving over 7,600 women with heart disease or high risk of it who averaged 60 years of age.

“This study was destined from the outset to obtain a negative result” said Dr Damien Downing, medical director of ANH, a practicing medical doctor who has practiced nutritional and environmental medicine for over 25 years. Dr Downing also criticized the journal editor for publishing the study “in the knowledge that the data do not support the conclusions."
http://www.healthfreedom.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=649&Itemid

The paper was based on all of the randomized, controlled clinical trials Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapycovering the period January 1990 until January 2004. The study concluded that chemotherapy contributes to slightly over 2% to improved survival in cancer patients.

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under the heading: CANCER "CURE" LAETRILE

Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, ... said:
... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by chemotherapy—the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly: "Present medical knowledge makes it possible to cure seventy percent of cancers, if they are detected early."

http://alternativecancer.us/conventional.htm#Chemo