"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." -Adolf Hitler
"I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused." -- Senator Barack Obama

"If you don't like Obama, you is a racist!" -- Kelonda

Search This Blog

"If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, he can count on the continued support of Paul.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Natural News: How toxic chemotherapy kills both cancer cells and cancer patients

The experts speak on chemotherapy:

"Chemotherapy poisons your body as a whole in an attempt to kill cancer cells"

As Duesberg explains, AZT had been designed to work as would any other chemotherapeutic drug. "chemotherapy," he says, "is a rational but desperate treatment for cancer." The toxic drug given in the process will kill any and all growing cells in the patient. After a short round of chemo, "the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead, and you are only half dead and recover." Duesberg points out that the dangerous violence of the method, which is slaughtering cells wholesale, not targeting only cancer cells, is evident in the side effects. "You lose your hair, you lose weight, you get pneumonia, you get immune deficiency, because it's severe cellular intoxication. You kill a lot of good cells, too."
Aids A Second Opinion by Gary Null PhD with James Feast, page 429

"How chemotherapy harms your body"

In September 1986, Anne decided to stop chemotherapy despite the opposition of her oncologist. "My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison," she observes. "On several occasions the doctor couldn't perform chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any further chemotherapy treatments."
The Center Prevention Diet by Michio Kushi & Alex Jack, page 131

Other treatments, with significant side effects, are being investigated for more serious forms of the disease. Immunosuppressive drugs that have been used for cancer chemotherapy and organ transplants may reduce the autoimmune response. These drugs are cytotoxic; that is, they kill cells that are extremely active, which in autoimmune disease are white blood cells.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 1373

Nausea is usually a passing symptom that will almost always go away by itself. In most cases, I recommend natural remedies for nausea because they are often as effective as some of the prescription antiemetic drugs, but they do not cause unnecessary side effects. The only exception to this rule, however, is in the case of cancer patients who are receiving chemotherapy; the kind of intense nausea they may experience can be so severe that stronger measures may be needed.
Secret Remedies by Earl Mindell RPh PhD, page 204

"The tri-fold approach to mainstream cancer therapy"

The mainstream medical establishment often prescribes mastectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy to treat breast cancer, an approach that has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy. This approach may be in for a reappraisal with the recent insight by the medical world that breast cancer is actually three different diseases, with indistinct boundaries, rather than one. In other words, only some breast cancers fit the image of a disease that is fast-growing and fast-spreading. Two other categories of this condition exist, the slowest-growing of which may never spread or be life-threatening at all. With this realization comes the idea that giving everyone with breast cancer chemotherapy may be unnecessary. Considering the harmful effects of chemotherapy, the belated nature of this realization is disturbing, to say the least.
Complete Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Gary Null PhD, page 72

Dr. Atkins regards chemotherapy as otherwise dangerous and best avoided in treating the majority of cancers. Only in situations in which chemotherapy is proven to be effective and curative would I recommend it, he says. In general, this might be testicular cancer …
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 595

Three days later, she had her breast lopped off. That was followed up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair fell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldn't keep any food down. Then they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke. Most people don't know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldn't touch any of that medicine with a 10-foot pole.
Get Healthy Now by Gary Null, page 762

I try never to use radiation treatment -- which is even more dangerous than most forms of chemotherapy -- without also using hyperthermia, says Dr. Atkins. Thanks to hyperthermia, we can shrink tumors with far less radiation to get the same therapeutic outcome, and our patients' immune systems and overall health are faring much better as a result.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 609

If prostate cancer develops, mainstream medicine typically offers prostatectomy, or removal of the prostate, chemotherapy, and radiation. All are ineffective and often dangerous. Surgery, like biopsy, can actual spread cancer cells, and often decreases sexual potency and urinary control. PACT, a prostate support group, advocates hormonal blockers to induce cancer shrinkage, which may hold the disease at bay for several years, followed by a prostatectomy or cryosurgery (freezing of the prostate). The most common hormonal blockers are Lupron and Fludamide. As prostate cancer is generally slow growing, patients, especially those in the early stages, have time to try less harmful methods of treatment.
Complete Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Gary Null PhD, page 308

Rufer and her husband sued Abbott Laboratories, UWMC, and the cancer specialist who treated her. UWMC and the doctor argued that they had relied on the Abbott test results. Abbott denied all responsibility, even though the literature distributed with its tests made no mention of the potential for false positives. What's more, according to a court opinion, it turned out that Abbott also had access to reports that false positive results on its assay led to unnecessary cancer treatment before 1998. It received over forty complaints of false positives, including multiple complaints of unnecessary chemotherapy and surgery before Jennifer Rufer's first treatment in April 1998.
Critical condition by Donald L Barlett and James B Steele, page 63

To reduce the need for steroids, immunosuppressants such as azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine (also used in the treatment of some cancers), or cyclosporine may be substituted. Various chemotherapy agents and organ transplant antirejection drugs are also used. Again, these medications have their own problematic or dangerous side effects. Therefore, thoughtful consideration of a treatment plan coordinated by the patient's physician is required.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 614

The diagnosis of bilateral lung cancer was confirmed by x-rays, a CAT scan, and a lung biopsy. Like Dr. Meshad, the physician at the center recommended against chemotherapy. Ruth's prognosis was not good: the cancer was aggressive and her history of liver disease made the use of chemotherapy dangerous.
Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer By Dr I William Lane, page 155

"Alternatives to chemotherapy and other forms of mainstream cancer treatment"

In other words, alternative therapies may pose a serious threat when a patient, if swayed toward alternatives, loses the opportunity to receive the (extremely) effective orthodox treatment? Run that by me again. Time and time again it has been confirmed that the proven medical treatments are not only ineffective but dangerous. The vast majority of patients with cancer live longer and better if left without the orthodox treatments. Oncologists will not accept these treatments for themselves. No scientific research is needed to prove that fresh vegetables, fruit, juices, medicinal herbs, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. are not harmful to the body. It would be nice if there were proof that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy were not harmful.
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 224

Finally, if cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. By constantly touting the promise of anticancer drugs, orthodox practitioners ward off this challenge to their expertise and scientists parry the threat radically new concepts represent to their long years of research. The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 84

Daniel Greenfield: Obama’s Hollywood Backers Stand Up for a Pedophile Rapist

"The Polanski case demonstrates the radical differences between absolute and relativist morality. Either rape is always wrong, or it’s only wrong when it’s 'rape-rape', as Whoopi Goldberg put it on the View. Either child abuse is always wrong, or it’s only wrong when you don’t have warm feelings toward the perpetrator. There are either absolute rights and wrongs. Or only things that are right or wrong depending on how you feel about those doing them. And that is the key point, without absolute morality, subjective morality in which there is one law for your allies and another for everyone else takes hold. We saw that same dual morality in action in the waning days of the Clinton Administration when formerly people who claimed to have no tolerance for sexual harassment, treated Bill Clinton as the victim, and his accusers as the criminals. Today those same people are at it again with Roman Polanski."

Dr. Paul L. Williams: Muslims now hunting Christians in Africa

PRAISE BREAK (Encouraging Word)

Steven Ertelt: Washington Times Confirms Baucus Health Care Bill has Rationing for Seniors

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In their analysis of the Baucus health care bill, pro-life groups point out a section that rations health care for senior citizens. In an editorial today, the Washington Times confirms that to be the case, and members of a Senate panel will address it when they vote on amendments next week to fix the problems.

Borrowing from a controversial phrase first introduced by Sarah Palin, the Times says, "Yes, there are death panels. Its members won't even know whose deaths they are causing."

"But under the health care bill sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, death panels will indeed exist - oh so cleverly disguised as accountants," the Times editors write.

The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the bill buried deep in a section about Medicare payments to doctors that would take an attorney to decipher.

"Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization," the Baucus bill says.

The Times translates the language into plain English, saying "it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent."

"This provision makes no account for the results of care, its quality or even its efficiency. It just says that if a doctor authorizes expensive care, no matter how successfully, the government will punish him by scrimping on what already is a low reimbursement rate for treating Medicare patients," the Times explains.

"The incentive, therefore, is for the doctor always to provide less care for his patients for fear of having his payments docked. And because no doctor will know who falls in the top 10 percent until year's end, or what total average costs will break the 10 percent threshold, the pressure will be intense to withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold it some more," it continues. "Or at least to prescribe cheaper care, no matter how much less effective, in order to avoid the penalties."

The National Right to Life Committee analysis concludes that this provision will cause a "death spiral" by "ensur[ing] that doctors are forced to ration care for their senior citizen patients."

Even liberal columnist Nat Henthoff agrees, calls the provision "insidious," and writes that "the nature of our final exit" will be very much at risk.

Apart from the rationing concerns, the Times says the provision makes little financial sense.

"For all the trouble to the doctors and all the added risks to elderly patients, this provision will raise just $1 billion over six years for the federal Treasury. That doesn't account, though, for the added costs to the government - and thus to taxpayers - of tracking all this data per doctor and per patient, and then trying to collect the penalties from doctors after they already have been paid for their services," the editors write.

The Times notes that this isn't the only provision of the Baucus bill that leads to rationing of medical care for seniors.

The proposed "health care exchange" and the independent review panels and a national health board "will be empowered to make aggregate decisions - based on statistics, not on an individual patient's needs - about what sorts of care will be allowed and what won't," the Times writes.

"As it is in Great Britain, where thousands of cancer patients each year die prematurely due to lack of treatment, the inevitable result of government care could be the same for many Americans as if an actual panel decided case-by-case to euthanize them," the editorial says.

"The Baucus provision would only exacerbate this bureaucratic preference for death by proxy," it concludes.

Hollywood Defends Roman Polanski (Whoopi Goldberg Says He Did Not Commit "Rape-Rape")

JOHN D. MCKINNON: Group Tied to Obama Urges Tax Increase

"A liberal think tank with close ties to President Barack Obama says the administration and Congress should consider raising taxes on Americans to help close federal budget deficits, an opening salvo in what is likely to be a protracted debate on tax policy.

"In a draft report, the Center for American Progress says the size of projected budget gaps requires considering options including tax increases as well as curbs on annual spending and entitlement programs supported by Democrats.

"Such ideas could pose problems for Mr. Obama, who pledged during the campaign to not increase taxes on families making less than $250,000. The report, which will be released on Wednesday, said the administration can't rely on taxing richer Americans and companies to reduce the deficit to sustainable levels by 2014 because those groups would see 40% tax increases.

"'In all seriousness, responsible people know that additional revenue has to be part of the mix even if they believe in lower taxes in general,' the report concludes."

Mark Hemmingway: What’s Hiding in the Health-Care Bill?

"1. Democrats are hiding the true cost of the bill.

"The actual cost of the Baucus bill is $1.7 trillion over ten years, but Democrats prefer to say it will cost $900 billion over the next ten years — this is true, but only because the main spending provisions don’t kick in until 2013. The Democrats also aren’t advertising that the $838 billion in new taxes and fees in the legislation begin being collected next year.

"Further, the bill’s long-term deficit-reduction plans depend on cuts to Medicare — year after year — that Congress seems unlikely to support once Baucus’s bill is passed. Even when the Congressional Budget Office tallied up the costs of the bill based on the assumption that these cuts would be made, the CBO voiced doubts that they will be. “These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified to avoid reductions in those payments,” reads the CBO score of the Baucus bill. That’s bureaucrat-speak for “Not gonna happen.”

"2. Democrats don’t know how much the bill will cost — and don’t want anyone else to know, either.

"So far, some 500 amendments have been proposed for the Baucus bill, many of which will make the legislation more expensive — how much more expensive, no one knows. Just last Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee approved a supposedly cost-neutral amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.). A few hours later, the CBO informed the committee the bill would cost $600 million. Once the Finance Committee is done considering the amendments in the ongoing mark-up hearings, we could be looking at a radically different and far costlier piece of legislation. Remember all the giveaways that were required to secure enough House votes to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill? Expect similar add-ons to Obamacare.

"And then, it will be hard to tell how much the legislation costs; the Senate Finance Committee doesn’t work with the actual legislative language. They work in “conceptual” language or what they call “plain English.” Senator Baucus himself admits, “This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language.” It doesn’t just sound crazy, the CBO says that it is. Without the actual legislative language, any CBO review of the bill “does not constitute a comprehensive cost estimate” and makes it impossible to get an accurate sense of the cost. When CBO said they would need two weeks to do another formal cost estimate of the amended bill, Baucus balked.

"It's not just the CBO who won't get a chance to look over the bill. Senate Democrats voted down an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R., Kent.) that would have required that, after mark-up, the final language be made available to the public for 72 hours on the Internet. Senator Baucus says he’s against putting the bill online because that, too, would take two weeks.

"Let’s say it would take (an implausible) two weeks to post the bill on the Internet — why would that be a problem? Even Senate moderates were taken aback by Baucus’s reasons for denying the public and the CBO a better look at the bill. “If it takes two more weeks, it takes two more weeks. . . . Is there something happening in two weeks that we can not wait? . . . I want to do our job and I want to sit here and do it as long as it takes,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine), whose support for the bill was once considered crucial. “We shouldn't be afraid of numbers and facts,” Snowe added.

"Apparently, Democrats are afraid that you'll find out what's in the bill and what it will cost.

"3. The Democrats aren’t telling the truth about getting to keep your coverage.

"The legislation contains over $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. That includes $122 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that allows seniors to receive Medicare benefits through private insurance plans rather than the typical fee-for-service arrangement in Medicare. The number of seniors enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program has nearly doubled from 5 million to 10 million in the last six years, or 22 percent of all Medicare recipients. That’s because Medicare Advantage plans make it easier to get access to doctors and often offer services that go beyond what the traditional Medicare plan does. But Medicare Advantage also costs more, so Democrats have targeted it for cuts. This could mean lots of seniors are kicked out of Medicare Advantage.

"Medicare spending is unsustainable, and Medicare Advantage in particular is expensive. It would be fine if Democrats acknowledged this as a matter of tough choices in the name of fiscal rectitude. Instead, Democrats insist that under the current legislation, “if you like your coverage you can keep it.” Noting the conflict between the specific rhetoric used to sell the bill and what it actually does, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) proposed an amendment to the bill designed to protect Medicare Advantage. It didn’t pass. Hatch proposed another amendment designed to ensure no more than a million people would lose their current coverage. It didn’t pass. And Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) proposed another amendment to protect the coverage people currently have through their employers from becoming more expensive due to government mandates. It didn’t pass.

"4. The bill promises to provide more coverage to more people with less money and fewer doctors.

"The bill would put some 11 million more Americans into Medicaid. There’s bipartisan agreement that Medicaid doesn’t pay doctors enough. A 2009 survey by Merritt Hawkins and Associates on physician wait times found that over half of all specialists in many major metropolitan areas are refusing to take on new Medicaid patients. According to the survey, “Medicaid is not widely accepted in most markets surveyed, in at least some of the medical specialties reviewed, and, in some cases, all of them.”

"Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) proposed an amendment that would raise the reimbursement rates for children in Medicaid to 100 percent of Medicare levels. It was rejected, as was an amendment (from Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi) to give people enrolled in Medicaid the right to choose to enroll in private insurance plans.

"Until Democrats present a concrete plan for addressing doctor shortages, their promise to cover more Americans and keep costs down at the same time seems dubious at best. (And that’s not taking into account the fact the CBO says that the Medicaid expansion will force $37 billion in unfunded mandates on the states, even as most struggle to balance their budgets.)

"Further, the bill does nothing to address the fraud problem in Medicaid. The Baucus bill is expanding Medicaid even though the Government Accountability Office says 10 percent of all Medicaid spending is fraudulent.

"The bill also does nothing to staunch the hemorrhaging of health-care dollars that flow to the trial bar every year. The lawsuit industry annually imposes costs on the U.S. health-care system that run into the hundreds of billions, estimates Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy.

"This is just what we know about the Baucus legislation after one week of Senate Finance Committee hearings — without knowing which of the over 500 amendments will be tacked on to the bill, with the Senate actively preventing the public from seeing the legislative language, and without an accurate assessment from the Congressional Budget Office on what the final bill is going to cost."

Rev. Wayne Perryman: Lincoln & The Tea Party’s Fatal Mistake

In Lincoln’s memoirs, he was quick to point out that one of his fatal mistakes was thinking that he could win the war without the support of black soldiers. When he received first hand reports of the powerful impact that the black soldiers were having under the leadership of General Lorenzo Thomas, Lincoln wrote: “I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Mississippi.” Scholars say, Lincoln and his Secretary of War had forgotten that African-Americans had bravely fought in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Lincoln openly admitted that not recruiting black soldiers to participate in the fight for their own freedom was a big mistake, the same fatal mistake that many of the organizers of Tea Parties are making when they fail to recruit and encourage conservative blacks to partnership with them in the fight to preserve our freedom and traditional values.

As a well known “independent” conservative and author, I have been ask to speak at several conservative events, while other Black, Latino and Asian conservatives are often overlooked and/or ignored. Fighting to preserve and maintain conservative values is not a white fight, it is a fight that all conservatives must participate in regardless of their color. Like white conservatives at the grass-root level, Black, Latino and Asian conservatives have a responsibility to stand up for conservative values whether they are invited to participate or not. It is not at the grass-root level that I am concern with, it is at the speaker level and far too many Tea Party organizers (not all), for one reason or another have not included conservative speakers of other ethnicities.

We are in a cultural war and like the United States Military, we must use all branches of the military to accomplish our mission. In our cultural war our Air Force, Marines, Navy, Army, and Special Forces are conservative women, men, college students and persons from every ethnic group.

Lincoln thought blacks would not fight, could not fight, and weren’t interesting in fighting for the cause. I think many of the Tea Party organizers may feel the same way about blacks. After hearing from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other inner-city African American ministers over the years, I know that many were shock to find an inner-city minister like myself who was not only willing to publicly stand up for conservative values, but would invest substantial amounts of money publish books to support his position. (Recent books by Rev. Perryman include: The Drama of Obama, Unfounded Loyalty, and Unveiling the Whole Truth - www.wayneperryman.com).

Like the beautiful young lady standing alone in the corner waiting for some one to ask her to dance, many Blacks, Latinos and Asians are also waiting for someone to invite them to the dance of the Tea Parties (figuratively speaking). But like the beautiful girl, no thinks they will say: “yes.” The Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannity and the Governor Huckabees along with local Tea Party organizers must take the risk and reach out to partnership with conservative Blacks, Latinos and Asians if we are to win this cultural war. Lincoln took a risk and recruited blacks to win his war, we must take a risk to win ours as well. If we fail to do so, the liberals like the Confederacy, will kill us all. Contact Rev. Perryman at: Doublebro@aol.com.

I have a question for Whoopi Goldberg....



Whoopi, you feel that you should give a elegant pedophile a pass because he did not commit "rape-rape", a dumb-dumb statement, and it was 30 years ago.

Suppose it was a white Republican who raped a 13 -year-old girl 30 years ago. How would you feel about him? Should we give him a pass too?

If Roman Polanski thought that Sarah Palin was a great choice for Vice President, would you still give him a pass?

(By the way, Sandra Bernhard thought that we black men are experts in gang rape-rape. She wanted Sarah Palin to be our victims. Would you give me a pass too?)

Check this out http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

Tasha Easterling: Michael Moore Gives Democrats A Warning

"'I and a lot of other people have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health-care legislation that the people want,' the beefy filmmaker roared. 'We will come to your districts, and we will work against you, first in the primary, and if we have to, in the general election. . . . You think we're going to go along with you just because you're Democrats? You should think again!'"

Just words. Just speeches.