Article discussing chemotherapy and the affects that it has on our bodies after cancer treatment. Further articles and information can be found at http://www.cancerfreenow.org

1. cancerf reenow.org http://www.cancerfreenow.org/chemotherapy-destroys-both-you-and-your-cancer/
Chemotherapy Destroys Both You And Your Cancer!
In my personal research on the options of chemotherapy I came across some shocking research that
clearly shows that the traditional medical approach destroys both the cancer and the cancer patient!
Ralph W. Moss, author, The Cancer Industry you said: “If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that
chemotherapy is of limited usef ulness and is of ten dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in
direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. …The use of
chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how inef f ective and
dangerous it can be.”
Af ter several sessions of radiation and chemotherapy, the patient is of ten lef t so weak, has lost their
appetite and their immune system has been greatly suppressed exposing one to mass inf ections. They may
survive the chemotherapy, but literally ‘die’ f rom the side-ef f ects.
Cancer is destroyed but the Patient is half dead!
In f act, such patients in dire condition have had PET
scans indicating that the cancer tumors is gone or
signif icantly reduced af ter all the chemotherapy, surgery,
etc., but the patient is dead or very close to it. Imagine
now how ridiculous it sounds when an oncologist says
that they cured the cancer, but the patient died f rom
‘other complications’.
The so-called ‘success rate’ of traditional medicine in
treating cancer is very low, as low as 2% or 3% but when
they claim it’s better than that its of ten because when a
cancer patient dies instead of putting died f rom cancer on
the Medical Certif icate, of ten the medical community puts
as ‘cause of death’, liver malf unction, massive inf ection,
heart attack, and so on.
These causes of death were directly related to the cancer treatment they received in many cases!
So of ten the chemotherapy leaves the patient in a state of ‘no return’. Their bodies are so devastated by
the side-ef f ects of the treatments that there is not much lef t to do, but palliative care!
As Gary Null and James Feast write, “(Af ter chemotherapy,) the hope is the cancer is going to be totally
dead and you are only half dead and recover.”
Well in many cases they are not totally dead, but in all honesty they are what you might call ‘half dead’ or
‘dying’ and/or the quality of their lif e af terwards is a very lousy and painf ul.
Did you know that one of the world’s leading nuclear medical scientist,
John Gof man M.D.,Ph.D. f ound that past exposure to ionizing radiation,
primarily medical x-rays (eg mammograms), is responsible f or about 75
percent of the breast-cancer problem today?
And did you know that the mortality rate f or breast cancer in women over
55 was about 20% higher in 1995 than in 1970 (so much f or
mammograms)? (Irwin D. Bross, Ph.D.)
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

2. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, chemotherapy is “Not Intended to Cure You”.
Maybe you like millions of others believe that chemotherapy is the best lif e-saving cancer treatment
available, at least that is what most doctors would have us believe…but startling new research shows just
the opposite.
I want to inf orm you of an article by the well-known news agency Reuters that reported on a study headed
by Dr. Deborah Schrag of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and published in the prestigious New England
Journal of Medicine.
Reuters reported: “According to the study, 75% of people with advanced cancer believe going through
chemotherapy might cure them, even though their doctors are well aware that the odds are it will do no
such thing. In the study, 69% of patients with terminal lung cancer and 81% of patients with f atal colorectal
cancer did not understand that the dangers of chemotherapy they were receiving was not at all likely to
eliminate their tumors.”
According to Dr. Schrag, this is the result of an extreme communication breakdown.
“It’s hard to talk to people and tell them we can’t cure your cancer,” Schrag admitted, but the result is that
patients are opting into a very harsh treatment plan that comes with seriously detrimental side-ef f ects f or
all the wrong reasons.
Chemotherapy: Unbelievable Risks and Lousy Track Record
When a person is f aced with lif e or death they are very vulnerable. When you f irst hear the terrible news
f rom your doctor when he says: “You have cancer”, those words ring in your head f or days to come and
you are now overcome with f ear. What can the doctor of f er you? He has nothing else to of f er you, but
chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. He is not allowed to of f er any natural or complimentary programs or
remedies! And on top of that he will probably put so much f ear into you by saying things like “If you don’t
immediately start chemotherapy you only have a f ew months to live!”
No wonder so many cancer patients are f orced into accepting the grueling, debilitating, and potentially
permanent side-ef f ects of chemotherapy because we all want to stay alive.
In 2004, three oncologists f rom Australia authored a paper on the benef its conf erred by chemotherapy
treatment f or adults with the most common kinds of cancer. Even though the authors deliberately over-
estimated the benef its of chemotherapy whenever the data was uncertain, they ultimately concluded that
the dangers of chemotherapy contributes just over 2% to improved survival rates f or cancer patients.
Even more shocking despite its reputation as the gold-standard in cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an
average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2% f or all cancers, according to a study published in the
journal Clinical Oncology.
In f act, they said 2% should be regarded as chemo’s “upper limit of ef f ectiveness”.
American Cancer Society Has Reckless, Perhaps Criminal, Record on Cancer Prevention
A lot of people put their f aith in the American Cancer Society (ACS) and generously participate in its highly
publicized “National Breast Cancer Awareness Month” campaign each year, which includes the nationwide
promotion of mammography screening. But has mammograms reduced breast cancer?
In a report titled “AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY – More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving
Lives“, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many
conf licts of interest that hamper the ef f ectiveness of this organization.
For example, the ACS has close f inancial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer
drugs. But that is just the beginning. Other conf licts of interest include ties to, and f inancial support f rom,

3. the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk f ood industries—the very industries whose
products are the primary contributors to cancer!
Now the cold hard f acts are that now we know that these conf licts of interest are there, it becomes more
apparent why the ACS never addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why inf ormation
about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent f rom their National Breast Cancer
Awareness campaigns.
The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively f ocus on cancer research as well as
the chemical treatment of cancer. However, preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures,
proper diet and lif estyle changes receive almost no consideration at all.
Modern-Day Treatments Often Add More Pain and Suffering to Cancer Patients
Because most people are desperate to live, they are willing to do just about anything to get better. In
addition, doctors will with one sweeping statement denounce all natural therapies and clinics as inef f ective
quackery. Drugs, surgery and radiation are the primary recommendations of f ered by conventional
physicians to treat cancer. This includes taking outrageously expensive and dangerous medications that
of f er little, if any, benef it.
Take f or example, Avastin, this is a drug used f or metastatic breast cancer, which costs about $8,000 a
month and is one of the best-selling cancer drugs in the world, but did you know that it is now being
phased out in the U.S. due to lack of ef f ectiveness and dangerous side-ef f ects.
When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry.
Another study, The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD), f ound
that more than 4 in 10 patients (40%) who received chemotherapy toward the end of lif e experienced
potentially f atal ef f ects. And, af ter reviewing data f rom over 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of
receiving treatment, it was f ound that chemotherapy hastened or caused death in 27 percent of those
cases.
Former chemotherapy patient Anne explains in Michio Kushi’s and Alex Jack’s book, The Cancer Prevention
Diet: “My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison. On several occasions, the
doctor couldn’t perf orm chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was
dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any f urther chemotherapy treatments.”
Maybe you have known people like Anne who have suf f ered through months of of ten debilitating
chemotherapy.
Prof essor Null writes in his Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing, “The mainstream medical
establishment of ten prescribes mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy to treat cancer, an approach that
has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy.”
In Get Healthy Now, Prof essor Null describes one woman’s experience with mainstream medicine’s
approach to breast cancer treatment: “Three days later, she had her breast lopped of f . That was f ollowed
up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair f ell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldn’t keep any f ood
down. Then, they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke.” He concludes, “Most people
don’t know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldn’t touch any of that medicine with a 10-
f oot pole.”
The surgical removal of the cancerous body part also brings with it many psychological ef f ects of having a
body part no longer there.
Chemotherapy may be unnecessary in the first place
Chemotherapy is ef f ective in only 2 to 4% of cancers—-Hodgkin’s disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

4. (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma? – Ralph Moss interview 1995
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/canc/rmoss.html
Dr. Atkins says in Burton Goldberg’s Alternative Medicine, “Only in situations in which chemotherapy is
proven to be ef f ective and curative would I recommend it. In general, this might be testicular cancer.”
Many people also think that surgery can sometimes do more harm than good: Biopsy, f or example, may in
f act spread cancer cells, according to Prof essor Null. Dr. Lloyd Jenkins of the BUDWIG CENTER told me
of a man in his f if ties that had a small tumor in the base of his neck. He went f or a biopsy as recommended
by his doctor. Within a short time that small tumor became the size of a grapef ruit on the side of his neck.
The cancer has spread into his lymphatic system and within two months he was dead!
If you do your homework you will see that the medical community admits that there is basically no 100%
accurate cancer test. It simply does not exist yet. However, a biopsy is very accurate, theref ore this is of ten
recommended. However, the price one pays to determine the cancer is a very high price to pay, it may be
paying with ones very lif e!
Furthermore, the most extreme example of unnecessary cancer therapy – treatment f or f alse positive
cancer diagnoses – is more common than we’d like to believe, according to Critical Condition authors
Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. How many people who got better af ter having received chemotherapy
never really had cancer in the f irst place?
What doctors say about Chemo Therapy?
Something that still baf f les me is when I read reports like that of what Scientists based at McGill Cancer
Centre who sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of f aith these
practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. Imagine this, 79 doctors responded
of which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin – one of the common chemotherapy
drugs they were testing (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) and 58 of the
79 f ound that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the inef f ectiveness of chemotherapy and
its unacceptably high degree of toxicity.
You see the doctors will use words like “ef f ective” treatment, which is a very vague term. Of ten it simply
means it will ‘reduce tumors’. The tumor is not your real problem. In f act, your body in its wisdom
encapsulates the cancer cells in an envelope (tumor) until your immune system can ef f ectively deal with the
cancer cells. The only real way to ‘cure’ cancer is to remove the ‘cause’ of the cancer in the f irst place by
destroying the cancer virus/f ungus in the f irst place.
If you read the thousands of studies done by Dr. Moss as part of his research you will notice that there is
not one single positive study documenting the claim the chemotherapy can cure cancer and improve your
lif e!
Here is the really sad part of this is that once a person has suf f ered through the hair loss, vomiting, pain,
lif e-threatening mouth sores, destruction of the intestinal lining and immune system, etc., they of ten are in
such a horrible state they can no longer respond to any other natural alternative cancer therapy. They may
have reached the ‘point of no return’.
The doctors themselves are very much aware the chemotherapy drugs are highly toxic substances that are
related to the ‘mustard gas’ used in World War 1.
Many Doctors would not choose Chemotherapy
Many doctors have honestly stated that they themselves would not accept chemotherapy f or themselves
and their loved ones!
Dr. John Bailar is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was f ormerly the editor of
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the New England Journal of Medicine published an

5. article by Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a colleague f rom the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith wrote:
“Some 35 years of intense and growing ef f orts to improve the treatment of cancer have not had much
overall ef f ect on the most f undamental measure of clinical outcome – death. The ef f ort to control cancer
has f ailed so f ar to obtain its objectives.
By shrinking tumors, chemotherapy encourages stronger cancer cells to grow and multiply and become
chemo resistant.
Then there are the new cancers caused by chemotherapy, or secondary cancers. You can f ind this
inf ormation quite easily at the National Cancer Institute.
Did you know that Dr. John Cairns, a prof essor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view in Scientif ic
American in 1985, “that basically the war on cancer was a f ailure and that chemotherapy was not getting
very f ar with the vast majority of cancers.”
I read that as f ar back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA f ame was quoted in the New York
Times saying that the American public had been “sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer.”
My question is this; why are the oncologists still ‘pushing’ chemotherapy on the population? Well, Dr. Moss
f eels that “there’s a tremendous conf lict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists.”
They’re in a very dif f icult position because they’ve been trained to give these drugs. And, they’ve devoted
many years to reaching a very high-level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds.
They’re really in a bind because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools they’ve
been given don’t work. And, they see what happens to physicians who “step out of line” and treat cancer
with alternative means.
They know about the armed raids (police showing up and hand cuf f ing doctors), loss of licensure,
prof essional smearing and ostracism are some of the consequences.
Well like so many things in our ‘sick’ world today, its “all about the money”!! I read once that af ter the energy
industry (oil, gas, wind, solar, electricity, etc) cancer is the next biggest industry. Did you know that cancer
treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The Bristol Myers company owns patents on
twelve of the nearly f orty “FDA-approved” chemotherapeutic drugs. The president, past president, chairman
of the board, and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Dr. Moss’ book details the f ailures (and very f ew successes) f or chemotherapy with more than f if ty types
of cancer, includes a complete description of the major chemotherapy drugs, and has a section about
questions to ask your doctor. Please do not take my word f or it, all of Dr. Moss’ books and Cancer
Chronicles newsletters are available f rom Equinox Press, 1-800-929-WELL or 718-636-4433
Where is the Science?
We pride ourselves in America and Europe f or being technologically advanced and claiming it to be rooted in
a f oundation of good science.
Not so when it comes to medicine! Imagine the Of f ice of Technological Assessment’s paper states that
f ewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested
badly.
Dr. Dan Harper, reported in an unpublished cohort study in which it was revealed that only 9% of
oncologists took chemotherapy f or their cancers.
Listen to this comment: “…as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that
physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” – Alan
C Nixon, PhD, f ormer president of the American Chemical Society.

6. Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: “Af ter analysing cancer survival statistics f or
several decades, Dr. Hardin Jones, Prof essor at the University of Calif ornia, concluded “…patients are as
well, or better of f untreated.” Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been ref uted.
Prof essor Charles Mathe declared: “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment
centre. Cancer victims who live f ar f rom such centres have a chance.” The sad thing is most cancer victims
do the standard medical therapies and then when they see that it does not work they look f or Clinics that
of f er natural therapies. However, they are of ten so ravaged by the side-ef f ects of chemo that now even
the natural approaches will no longer work.
“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy f or virtually any tumor, with a hopef ulness
undiscouraged by almost invariable f ailure,” Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 “Medical
Oncology in the 90s.
“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon,
or lung cancers. This f act has been documented f or over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy f or
these tumors,” Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer.
“Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years,”
Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707.
Now here is shocking inf ormation to digest…Irwin Bross, a biostatistician f or the National Cancer Institute,
discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize
until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, Irwin Bross f ound that many people who’ve been
diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy.
For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal,
gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck.
But like mindless robots oncologists still recommend a regimen of chemotherapy.
Remember when President Reagan had his colon cancer that was successf ully removed by surgery, and his
health was reported daily as he recovered. Now on his return to work, a spokesperson appeared,
proclaimed him cured, and that was that. However, very nearly every patient who undergoes surgery f or
colon cancer gets put on chemotherapy af terwards. Why not Present Reagan? Why the exception?