I found an article in which a leading breast cancer surgeon strongly admonished the Prince of Wales for him publicly supporting alternative cancer therapy for cancer patients. Although this report isn’t as timely as I would have liked (around 2004), it is very instructive as to the mindset of many medical professionals, and how they view things. I decided to analyze what the physician was saying so that you could better see how they think.
Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London basically told Prince Charles that he was full of it. The Prince was supporting the Gerson therapy for cancer (and many other diseases). I do realize that this therapy doesn’t work for everybody (no treatment or therapy has a 100% cure rate), but Dr. Gerson did have a success rate that was higher than that for conventional cancer treatments(which is said to really be closer to 3% than what they claim it is).
In any event, Baum refers to ‘the power of his authority’ being his 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. This is admirable and very convincing. But unfortunately, after all of this work, I want to ask “Where is the cure?” Where is the cheap, NON-TOXIC treatment or cure for cancer that he (or his entire multi-billion dollar cancer research institution) developed? It doesn’t exist in his mind because his attitude is that the only treatments for disease and cancer is a drug.
He addresses the topic of prejudice, but conveniently leaves out his own prejudices. His prejudice is that the only legitimate cancer treatments are the ones that scientists find. He fails to recognize, or may not even know that Gerson WAS an MD! But the problem with Gerson isn’t that he was an MD, but that he was an MD who went outside of the proscribed boundaries of ‘legitimate’ medical research. He is very eloquent in his attack upon the Gerson therapy. But his reasoning skills are not as strong as one would think because he admits that research has shown that people spent more on alternative cancer therapies than on conventional medical treatments. That is a ‘flashing neon light’ that appears to say that people are wary of expensive, poisonous, toxic, ineffective conventional cancer treatments. Not everyone is mesmerized by people flashing letters behind their names, magnificent titles, ownership of the major media outlets and high prestige jobs. The results speak for themselves. Abe Lincoln once said that ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.” And he was right. The professor seems to be a bit angry that he has failed at getting everyone to conform to his beliefs about cancer treatments.
He even has the audacity to say that if more of the money spent on alternative cancer therapies was spent on conventional medical research, they could make more advances more rapidly. If more than $90 billion per year on cancer research isn’t enough, how much IS enough??? It seems more probable that the more we spend on cancer research, the more incentive that the cancer industry has to NOT cure cancer. How can anyone honestly explain away the fact that after many billions of dollars spent on cancer research, the best (and only) treatments for cancer are still the same after over 50 years of this research? If you believe that this is the best approach to cancer treatment, I strongly urge you to expand your mental horizons on this topic.
He goes on to state that “alternative therapies are not subject to rigorous, scientific proof.” What he fails to mention is that many of the conventional cancer treatments are experimental, and this means that cancer patients must sign waivers of liability before they are treated. Another problem with these scientific studies is that they are performed by scientists paid by Big Pharma companies. This is a blatant conflict-of-interest, as these scientists are weary of reporting anything that would be negative to Big Pharma, thereby risking being cut off financially. Don’t think that it hasn’t happened before. Also, studies on treatments that are likely to destroy markets for Big Pharma drugs have often been sabotaged in order to offer ‘scientific evidence’ that these treatments don’t work. In particular, the Sloan-Kettering cancer facility did this on Vitamin B-17/Laetrile, as witnessed by Dr. Ralph Moss. There are definitely other instances of this.
Conversely, it has been said that over 75% of all routine medical procedures that physicians perform are not supported by ‘rigorous, scientific proof’ that this doctor demands of alternative medicine. Baum then goes on to arrogantly say that people with an interest in alternative medicine are middle-class, and that ‘salt-of-the-earth’ people trust their doctors and that they hate alternative health care treatments and methods. This is amazing to see this professor use the old ad hominem attack on people who question conventional cancer treatments. I remember seeing physicians actually recommend cigarettes to their patients back in the 1950’s and ’60’s, as well as actually getting paid by tobacco manufacturers to promote them in advertisements. So why should we blindly trust physicians today?
I just find it very interesting to see physicians get very unscientific in their defense of ineffective medical and scientific paradigms. If there were a cure for cancer that they developed, people would not need to find more effective ways to treat it. If scientists and physicians truly did their jobs, people like me would not have any reason to write articles like this. But I suppose that scientists are doing the jobs that they have been given by Big Pharma, and that is to protect Big Pharma profits. I don’t think that most physicians are conscious of this, and that they have been brainwashed to view scientific ideas in a certain way. But the bottom line is that the people we have been paying to cure us are making massive fortunes from merely treating us.