Cancer Surgeon Rebukes Prince of Wales Support for Alternative Cancer Treatments

by , under Alternative Treatments, Big Pharma, Contemporary Cancer Topics, Conventional Treatments, The Cancer Industry

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.

  1. Ann Brauchi

    I don’t know who you are, or what your training or background might be, but you couldn’t be more incorrect.
    Firstly, many cancers can now be cured. How do you think it is that Lance Armstrong went stage IV and isn’t sick now? There are four known stage IV’s which can now be cured. It’s just one of a zillion success stories.
    And your comment re: treatments haven’t changed in 50 years? You’re not at all up to date on current therapies if you believe your own statements. Try reading, for example, the TGen site – a huge group of scientists who are trying to work on new targeted therapies. They’re non -profit. Every actually met a research scientist, as I have?
    They’re not make hardly anything at all – they’re degreed to practice, but elect years of hard work instead at lower salaries – it’s their dedication and success that keeps so many of us survivors alive. You also write as though there’s only ONE cancer to cure. This indicates your ignorance to the entire topic. How much is enough? When we no longer have to keep working on cures for all cancers. Alternative cures? Nonsense! There’s no proof that
    anyone’s cancer simply didn’t go into remission with an alternative cure as a co-incidence. NONE!!! Do your homework before you write about something in which you know noting about!

  2. admin

    Thank you for your response.

    I have extensive scientific training and background, to address your comment.

    There are a lot of questions about ‘cures’ for cancer, considering that the medical establishment doesn’t allow physicians to use the ‘cure’ word when it comes to cancer. I’m not sure if I agree with your claim that ‘many cancers can now be cured’, and the cancer fatality statistics given by the ‘cancer authorities’ also show that cancer still kills millions of people every year.

    You give an anecdotal report about Lance Armstrong being cured of cancer. First of all, testicular cancer is a rare cancer, and is one of the FEW ones that are actually curable with chemo and surgery. So you basically ‘cherry-picked’ one of the ‘ringer’ types of cancer. What about the cancers that kill the most people? Lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, brain cancer? Since you want to go anecdotal, we can go there.

    I just had a friend die of liver cancer. My fiancee’s father was diagnosed with colon cancer. He had the surgery, and they then hit him with chemotherapy. At first they wanted to do 4 chemo treatments, but then the doctor wanted to do 8 treatments. They made his health and quality of life deteriorate. So after the 4th treatment, he refused to do any more. My aunt died a horrible death from colon cancer. They literally burned her to death with chemotherapy. It might have been more compassionate to waterboard her than to give her toxic poison chemotherapy masquerading as medicine. In addition, I’ve had numerous co-workers die from cancer and tumors. For every anecdotal account that you give, I can probably give 5 accounts of people dying of cancer. Most people know someone who has died of cancer, which would tend to prove that the ‘medical experts’ have not found any highly successful cures for cancer.

    I’ll grant you that today, the oncologists have figured out that they should use lower dosages (sometimes) to not kill off the patient as fast as they used to, but the basic philosophy has remained the same. Give the patient poisonous chemicals (chemo), burn it out with radiation (no matter how ‘targeted’ the radiation beam is), or to cut it out (surgery). They can sugar coat it with all these marketing terms, but the basic approach has been mostly the same, and it has remained the same for over 100 years.

    I checked out the TGen site that you recommended. It’s another highly complicated, expensive, search for a genetic solution to a mostly non-genetic disease. Most cancers are NOT genetic in origin, contrary to the attention given to genetic analysis of cancer research. Otto Warburg, Ph.D., found that cancer results when oxygen levels in the body are lower than a certain value. Nothing to do with genes, but it probably does have something to do with vitamin deficient diets and toxic overload of the body over extended amounts of time (think decades). I don’t see any ‘current therapies’ that are being promoted by mainstream oncology that address these issues.

    And since you want to make this personal, yes I have met research scientists, and used to work with them, and published a couple of papers with one as well. I do need to clarify that I’m not really attacking any particular scientist. I do understand that there are many sincere researchers that truly want to help cancer patients and cure cancer. Unfortunately, they have been subjected to medical school curricula that have been financed by big corporate interests. Have you ever read the Flexner Report? In case you haven’t, it was financed by Rockefeller and basically describes the exact process that he used to turn medicine into a cash-cow for his expensive drugs that never constitute a cure (think cure rate over 50%, not a “5 year survival rate”).

    Understand that research scientists are just employees that do what they’re told IF they want to keep getting their grants and funding. Scientists that don’t research in approved lines of research are defunded, and can be fired from their positions, regardless of tenure. And this is not just in the field of oncology/cancer treatments. I know that some people get this romanticized vision of scientists, but it’s a job like any other job. Some things are great, other things are not so great. And all of them are full of politics and special interests.

    I know that there is not just ONE cure for cancer, as I stated amply in the article.

    You took a broad stroked brush and only supported the scientists and physicians that support your view, while trashing all of the others that were not acknowledged by the medical establishment. Take Dr. Gerson for example. He was curing people of many diseases, not just cancer. The man was professionally ostracized because his treatment was effective and cheap, and would kill Big Pharma profits. And he was only one of a slew of medical and scientific professionals that had success against cancer and other chronic diseases!

    It appears to me that if the cancer industry is spending over $90 BILLION a year on cancer research and we still don’t have effective cures, the problem probably isn’t a lack of money! I hope that you can understand this.

    I know that it’s disconcerting to face the fact that the medical establishment may not always have our best interests at heart. But it’s the same way with other things. Big oil doesn’t want cars that get 500 miles to the gallon because it would be bad for profits, even though they have engineers that could accomplish this, and have suppressed inventions and innovation that could make this a reality. If patients would get more educated and demand more effective, less toxic treatments for cancer and would stop allowing themselves to be treated with poisons masquerading as medicines, doctors and Big Pharma would have no choice but to improve their treatment methods. But as long as we continue to tolerate it, they will continue to charge us exorbitant fees and incessantly beg us for donations to find the cure. Like I said before, if $90 billion isn’t enough to find a cure, I don’t know how much would be enough. If you can’t understand that, it’s because your mind is already made up. And that’s the antithesis to what science is all about.

Leave a Reply