Should one use conventional cancer treatments (chemotheraphy or radiation)?

Perhaps many of you with cancer have wondered and are still wondering:

 “What should I do? Listen to my oncologist or try another approach regarding treating my cancer? “

This decision you have to take by yourself and no one can take this decision in your place.


However, before taking a decision that could turn up vital(like the one above), you should consider facts.

You should be well informed about all treatment options, survival rates  and what scientific studies (in vitro and in vivo, on animals and clinical trials on humans),  state about each of them so that your decision would be one based on facts, one that maximizes your chances of survival and beating your cancer.


So, let’s have a look of your cancer treatment options.

Let us start with conventional treatment options in this article :

Surgery, Chemotherapy and Radiation.


Approximately  6.5 million people die every year due to cancer.
According to the World Health Organization, 7.9 million deaths in 2007 (13% of all global deaths) were caused by cancer. 

The hope of survival  for a period of 5 years from diagnosis, followed by conventional treatment (surgery + chemotherapy  / radiation), overall (considering all types of cancer) is lower than 3% (2.1% – 2 POINT 1 per cent  – according to 2004 National Journal of Oncology, Ralph Moss and other sources and hasn’t changed much since 2004). We are talking of surviving for a period of 5 years after being diagnosed and being treated with conventional methods, NOT about healing.

Given the number of annual diagnoses of cancer is increasing (it is estimated that the chance of being diagnosed  with cancer in your lifetime  is 1 in 2 people if you are a male or 1 in 3 people if you are a female) the future does not look bright, especially considering the money invested in research and development of new cancer drugs, that  for decades retain the same extremely low figures when it comes to survival.


First,  I must point out one thing that many people overlook :

Conventional medicine’ s official position about the primary cause of cancer is that it is unknown. Conventional medicine states that there are many “risk factors” that eventually lead to cancer, but how a cell turns cancerous and suffers DNA mutations is yet unknown.

See, for example, American Cancer Society’s position regarding breast cancer:

Do we know what causes breast cancer?

Many risk factors can increase your chance of developing breast cancer, but it is not yet known exactly how some of these risk factors cause cells to become cancerous.”


The same are stated for all types of cancer, on every other official medicinal cancer website.

All the official medical institutions (i.e.:  the National Cancer Institute – NCI ) state about a cancerous cell is that something happens  to it’s DNA in the cell renewal and division process:

” sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. “


Why is this extremely  important to consider when taking a decision about treating your cancer?

Conventional medicine official position is that it does not know exactly what is cancer. Consequently, conventional medicine does not know how to treat cancer efficiently. 

This is also one of the reasons mentioned when they ask for donations: to do more research. 


Proposed methods for treating cancer by conventional medicine(although it does not know exactly how to treat cancer):


There are cases where surgery may be the only way to survive – when a tumor is dangerous. A tumor is considered dangerous if it puts your life in immediate danger( for example, if it is very close to an internal organ such as near the brain, in the lungs, close to the pancreas,  liver, heart, etc., close to an artery / major blood vessel or on a mainstream channel that provide essential nutrients, oxygen, all other situations when the tumor endangers your life) .

If this is your case, do NOT neglect surgery as it might be the only solution to survive.


But most times, surgery can damage tissue surrounding the tumor  and “holding it together” so it may lead to the spread of cancer through the bloodstream and metastasis . The same applies for biopsies.


For most cases, I will quote Phillip E. Binzel, MD,  a doctor witch also uses laetrile/vitamin B17 (an alternative treatment):

“I am sure that there are still some of you who are concerned about “What are you going to do about the tumor?”

There are only three times when I am concerned about the tumor:

1. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is interfering with some vital function, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best available.

2. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are available.

3. If the presence of the tumor presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it removed.

In general, if the tumor is easily accessible and if the patient wishes to do so, I like to have the tumor removed. Not all doctors doing nutritional therapy agree with that. I feel that by removing the tumor the body has one less thing with which to cope. If the tumor is remote, not causing any problem and the patient agrees, I leave the tumor alone. Again, I stress the fact that the tumor is merely a symptom, not a cause. If you take care of the body, the body will take care of the tumor. That doesn’t mean that the tumor will go away, but it is unlikely to cause a problem.” 

Phillip E. Binzel, MD, Alive and Well, Chapter 14


2. Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is an invasive and toxic treatment with drugs(also called cytostatic/ anti cancerous / anti mitotic / anti neoplastic drugs) able supposedly to eliminate cancer cells.

Unfortunately  it is not able to differentiate between the cancerous cell or the healthy cell and surrounding healthy tissue. Chemotherapy is a poison that kills all living matter. Repeated chemotherapy  kill the whole body.

The immune system is hit particularly hard by chemotherapy and often does not recuperate enough to adequately protect from common illnesses, which can then lead to death. About 67% of people who die during cancer treatment do so through opportunistic infections arising as a direct result of the immune system failing because of the aggressive and toxic nature of the drugs.


Chemotherapy – A scientific wasteland

The following extract is taken from Dr Tim O’Shea at

“A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was “appalling” because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can “extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers. Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as “a scientific wasteland” and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the “emperor’s new clothes” – neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! – Lancet 10 Aug 91 

  “Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland” Dr Uhlrich Abel, Stuttgart, 1990″

In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of chemotherapy in patients with various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. Read complete Report here

More surprising,  though the above are well known and many websites and health practitioners quote this extended and shocking study, no mainstream media has mentioned it(except for NaturalNews, now).


I will write in this post about the four recent studies that are peer-reviewed scientific evidence-based.

Three recent studies published in the journals Nature and Science confirm that chemotherapy is usually a complete failure to eradicate cancer permanently. Based on numerous assessments of how cancer cells multiply and spread, researchers in many countries have confirmed that cancer tumors generate their own stem cells, which in turn feeds the re-growth of new tumors after previous ones were removed.

In one of the studies published in the journal Nature, the researcher Luis Parada from the University of Texas (UT) SouthWestern Medical Center in Dallas and his colleagues decided to investigate how new tumors are able to re-grow after the previous tumor was (eventually) destroyed by chemotherapy. To do this, Parada and his team identified genetically labeled cancer cells in brain tumors of mice before proceeding to treat tumors with conventional chemotherapy.

What they found was that although chemotherapy seemed in many cases to successfully kill tumor cells and temporarily stop the growth and spread of cancer, the treatment ultimately failed to prevent new tumors from forming. The reason were cancer stem cells that persisted long after chemotherapy, which led to the re-growth of new tumors later.

Read more :

A second study published in Nature found similar results using tumors of the skin, while a third published in the journal Science,   confirmed many other research studies involving intestinal polyps.

It looks like cancerous tumors possess an inherent capacity to produce their own stem cells that can circulate throughout the body and develop into tumors.

And conventional cancer treatments do nothing to solve them.


Experts in cancer warn: abandon chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery to treat cancer!

Researchers at the University of Michigan (UM) Comprehensive Cancer Center seem to agree with these findings and also suggest now, along with many others, a completely new approach to treat cancer. Rather than continue to rely on chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, progressive cancer researchers believe that now is the time to move forward with the investigation of new treatment approaches.

“Conventional  cancer treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation do not destroy the small number of cancer cells that support cancer growth”, UM Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Instead of trying to kill all the cells of a tumor with chemotherapy or radiation, we believe it would be more efficient to use specific treatments directly to these so-called cancer stem cells. If these stem cells were removed, the cancer could not grow and spread to other locations in the body. 


In another study, researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis, who wrote in the prestigious journal Nature, 89% of cancer studies published that have reviewed can not be reproduced.

What does this mean? Simple: These studies are wrong. Or at least, they do not provide strong evidence that doctors claim to base their treatments.


 Conventional cancer treatments are obsolete and wrong

The whole foundation of science is that if the experimental results of a scientist apply, the another scientist can reproduce and can do the same thing in the same way. If you get a different result every time you run an experiment, the results are random and – in essence – meaningless.

Fraud is simply to use non-reproducible research to help guide medical practice.


Major chemotherapeutic drug companies  are conducting scientific research with lack of evidence.

Only 6 of the 53 papers published as “landmark” reviewed may be reproduced in a clinical setting. These studies became the basis for introducing revolutionary approach to cancer treatment. Entire healthcare Guides and clinical treatment protocols were designed around these erroneous results.


Worse, the problem goes deeper than erroneous scientific research.

While any type of study is subjected to human error, the studies reviewed by Begley and Ellis also found other things.


A lot of money, power and influence seem to play a role – and the beneficiary is not public health.

Worse , a significant amount of published research appears to have been carried out under the cloud of conflict of interest. Dr. Reshma Jagsi, MD, who wrote a study at the University of Michigan, found a considerable percentage of cancer research has been made ​​questionable ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, pharmaceutical companies are behind the research and pay scientists to assert that certain drugs will work to treat cancer.

Once these treatments are officially “confirmed” push them in hospitals and doctors with a high price tag attached. To be fair, funding for a drug company studies is not proof in itself that a trial is unfair, but it is a red flag.

Financing of studies by pharmaceutical companies was the most common type of conflict of interest found.


The next problem was more common: studies in which the authors were employees of the drug industry.

Without pointing the finger a study, the results of these studies are suspicious when taken as a whole.

Truly independent studies were less likely to reach the same conclusion.

Why most cancer research is compromised?

Data from any legitimate scientific study should be treated objectively, but this new study clearly shows that those with a conflict of interest are biased in their analyzes – scientists deliberately commit fraud or take part to it .

When Begley and Ellis When have contacted study authors for details about their experiments, the two were asked to sign agreements not to disclose that their findings and their sources – proof that the authors were aware of their misleading results.

In addition, very few scientists involved in anti-cancer research disclose any potential sources of bias, even if they are forced to sign declarations on sources of funding and conflicts of interest before publishing any work.

Read more :  


Experts speak of chemotherapy:
“no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today.”

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure. Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers.  This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” 

Oncologist Albert Braverman, MD  1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901 “Medical Oncology in the 90s”


Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumour regressions….” Senior cancer physician Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic , US

“…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 Former president of the American Chemical Society

“…chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers – testicular, Hodgkin’s, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors – lung, colon, breast, etc. – chemotherapy is NOT curative.”, Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute


Dr Ralph Moss is the author of ‘The Cancer Industry’ – a shocking expose of the world of conventional cancer politics and practice. Interviewed live on the Laurie Lee show in 1994, Moss stated: “In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases , and this is the great lie about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of a patient.” 

Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given.” – Ralph Moss, PhD 

Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm’s tumor, and retinoblastoma.” Ralph Moss, PhD,  Former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center

“Cancer researchers, medical journals and the popular media all have contributed to a situation where most people with common malignancies are treated with drugs that are known to be effective.” – Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA 

“Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times”, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.  Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987

“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


“Despite the widespread use of chemotherapy, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years” – David Greenberg, MD NEJM in March 1975 

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” – Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer


Michael Cutler, MD:

Q: Does chemotherapy really help with treating cancer?

A: This may come as a shock, but no. In up to 98 percent of cases it fails.It is soo bad that when it was compared with no treatment by any means, no treatment proved to be better.

Prof. Jones (1956 Transactions of the NY Academy of Medical Sciences, Vol 6):

“My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer patients live up to four times longer than medicinal treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing, he will live longer and feel better than if they undergo radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, except when operations are used in life-threatening situations that immediately. ”

See also


Oncologists know that chemotherapy does not work!

Surveys by the Los Angeles Times and McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, Canada, found that 75-91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer personally.

Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and were asked which of six current trials they would choose. 79 doctors responded of which 64 (81%) would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were trialling, (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) and 58 of the 79 (73%) found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity.

They know how bad it is. However, not abstaining from prescribing chemotherapy for 75% of their patients with cancer.

Studies show that chemotherapy can help in only 2-4 percent of cancers: Hodgkin  disease, lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, testicular cancer and Choriocarcinoma. So, your doctor should recommend chemo only a small percentage of patients and that’s all . And he should know, too, that cases … unless you are one suffering from one of these cancers, chemotherapy is likely to do you more harm than good.

List of side effects in the short and long term, it is frightening and extended, including nausea, blood disorders, “events”, cardiovascular, impotence, hair loss, nail loss, joint pain, cognitive problems, and even death.



I will start by quting from the the National Cancer Institute – NCI :

  • Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to kill cancer cells by damaging their DNA.
  • Radiation therapy can damage normal cells as well as cancer cells. 
  • The radiation used for cancer treatment may come from a machine outside the body, or it may come from radioactive material placed in the body near tumor cells or injected into the bloodstream.
  • A patient may receive radiation therapy before, during, or after surgery, depending on the type of cancer being treated.
  • Some patients receive radiation therapy alone, and some receive radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy.
  1. What is radiation therapy? Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to shrink tumors and kill cancer cells (1). X-rays,gamma rays, and charged particles are types of radiation used for cancer treatment.The radiation may be delivered by a machine outside the body (external-beam radiation therapy), or it may come from radioactive material placed in the body near cancer cells (internal radiation therapy, also called brachytherapy).Systemic radiation therapy uses radioactive substances, such as radioactive iodine, that travel in the blood to kill cancer cells.About half of all cancer patients receive some type of radiation therapy sometime during the course of their treatment. 
  2. How does radiation therapy kill cancer cells?Radiation therapy kills cancer cells by damaging their DNA (the molecules inside cells that carry genetic information and pass it from one generation to the next) (1). Radiation therapy can either damage DNA directly or create charged particles (free radicals) within the cells that can in turn damage the DNA.Cancer cells whose DNA is damaged beyond repair stop dividing or die. When the damaged cells die, they are broken down and eliminated by the body’s natural processes.//Comment : Radiation does not kill cancer cells, it further damages their DNA or creates more free radicals.
  3. Does radiation therapy kill only cancer cells? No, radiation therapy can also damage normal cells, leading to side effects.Doctors take potential damage to normal cells into account when planning a course of radiation therapy  The amount of radiation that normal tissue can safely receive is known for all parts of the body. Doctors use this information to help them decide where to aim radiation during treatment.


Now let us comment on the amount of radiation received by the human body when subjected to radiation therapy :

• 100 mSv annual dose at which increased lifetime cancer risk if evident
• 250 mSv Dose limit for US radiation workers in life-saving operations
• 1,000 mSv Temporary radiation sickness. Nausea, low blood count. Not fatal.
• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose – survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose – high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose

The limit when ionizing radiation is FATAL for the human body  is 10,000 mSv.

Surprinzing, radiation theraphy uses doses of at least 20,000 mSv to ” treat ” cancer (doses can be much higher, depending on the “treated” area ) .

Read a complete analysis by the Health Ranger:


Any ionizing radiation that is higher than 100 mSv (annual dose at which increased lifetime cancer risk)  causes cancer (including  X-rays, mammograms , higher doses from CT scans and radiotherapy).

Every time a woman has a  low radiation dose from a mammography she increases her chance of developing breast cancer by about 3%  .

Do the simple math to find out how much you increase the chance of breast cancer if you follow medical advice and make annual mamograms.In addition to mammograms, mammograms are highly inefficient. As a result, many women have had needles biopsies and even surgery and chemotherapy / radiation without having any cancer, due to a false diagnosis.

Read more about the dangers of a mammography :


Consider a thermography (or , even better a DATG Dynamic Angiothermography) for breast cancer early detection as a safer (non-invasive), better(more precise and accurate) technique.


Even the ACS – American Cancer Society and the admits radiation is very carcinogenic :

“Do x-rays and gamma rays cause cancer?

Yes. X-rays and gamma rays are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). The evidence for this comes from many different sources, including studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, people exposed during the Chernobyl nuclear accident, people treated with high doses of radiation for cancer and other conditions, and people exposed to high levels of radiation at work, such as uranium miners.”

Remember, x-rays and gamma rays are used in radiation therapy, in  amounts that are higher than those who affect survivors of atomic bombs and nuclear accidents sites (people cannot survive whole body radiation(i. e.from nukes) in amounts higher than 10,000 mSv.)


Michael Cutler, MD:

Q: Is radiation a safer alternative or more effective way to treat cancer?

A: Radiation has hidden dangers and risks that are not widely publicized.

When doctors treat cancer with radiation, they use high energy to destroy tumor cells. The goal is to kill or destroy the cancer without harming healthy cells. Seems simple enough, right?

But there’s more to radiation than the eye sees.

First, there are side effects. Can have two types of side effects from radiation therapy. Side effects such as nausea, feeling tired, skin problems , problems eating and hair loss are usually temporary. They tend to develop during or immediately after treatment and improve a few weeks after treatment ends.

However, long term effects such as lung problems, heart or sexual problems may take years to develop and often do.

Unfortunately, the side effects are not the only thing you need to worry about when it comes to radiation. If the procedure is not done with the utmost precision and accuracy, healthy cells near the cancer may be damaged.  In addition, technical errors could lead to serious overdoses of radiation, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

For example, stereotactic “radiosurgery” should deliver high doses of radiation in the narrow beam in order to achieve accurate “surgery”. But bad connections on machines caused radiation “leakage” and exposed areas to mega doses of radiation .

Radiation centers normally do not notice the problem for several months because it takes a long time to complications resulting from radiation occur. Then, patients were already wounded, had difficulty speaking, walking, hair loss and even suffered death. “


Chemotherapy and radiation, can cause severe damage to the patient, including DEATH (a long time before the pacient would have died of his cancer if he woudn’t have done anything).


Are there things in the above quotations that have shocked you? 

The concept that people will die faster if treatments are surgery, chemotherapy and radiation may surprise some people.


How is it possible that people who are going through treatments may die sooner than people who refuse treatment?

In fact, there are many ways that orthodox cancer treatments can kill a cancer patient long before they would have died without treatment of any kind.A few examples:


Approximately 40% of cancer patients die from malnutrition before they die of cancer.

Two of the causes of malnutrition, which are related to chemotherapy:

  • First, chemotherapy causes severe nausea and vomiting. This makes many people “… to develop anorexia -. Loss of appetite or desire to eat This is not good at all, because it can lead to a condition known as “cachexia” – a syndrome characterized by weakness and continuous and visible loss of weight, fat and muscle. ”                   Cachexia is a common cause of death of cancer patients.
  • Secondly, chemotherapy destroys the lining of the digestive tract of many cancer patients (chemotherapy as it “targets” fast growing cells, such as those of the stomach, making it impossible for the body to absorb nutrients from the foods we eat, leading to malnutrition. Even if a cancer patient eat like a king, they can literally die of malnutrition.                                                                                                                                                                                                           “Chemo drugs kill fast-growing cells. But because these drugs travel throughout the body, they can affect normal, healthy cells that are fast-growing, too. […]The normal cells most likely to be damaged by chemo are blood-forming cells in the bone marrow; hair follicles; and cells in the mouth, digestive tract, and reproductive system. Some chemo drugs can damage cells in the heart, kidneys, bladder, lungs, and nervous system.”  American Cancer Society                                                                                                                                                                                               Of course, the patient is declared to have died due to malnutrition, not due to cancer, for statistics.


2. Severe damage to the immune system :

a.Because chemotherapy and radiation destroy the immune system of a person with cancer patients die from opportunistic infections such as sepsis or pneumonia. More than 200,000 Americans die due to sepsis annually. When a cancer patient dies due to sepsis, it is most likely that chemotherapy destroyed the patient’s immune system, allowing sepsis to easily kill the  patient.  It is considered a death due to sepsis, not a death due to cancer. This is just one of many ways that the medical community can hide the true statistics of chemotherapy and radiation.

b.Because chemotherapy and radiation destroy white blood cells (white blood cells are the body’s natural defenses against cancer), chemotherapy and radiation destroy not only a natural body defense against cancer that you currently  have , it also destroys, the body’s  defense  against new types of cancer.When Chemotherapy kills your White Blood Cells it is a Step by Step destruction of an already compromised immune system, one White Blood Cell at a time. Did you know that studies have been done that indicate that over 60% of Cancer patients, who take Chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the Cancer intself. Why? They have no immune system left to fight anything.

c. Because chemotherapy and radiation destroy red blood cells (red blood cells carry oxygen to the cancer cells and oxygen helps stop the spread of cancer), cancer cells do not get a regular supply of oxygen. Because cancer cells are anaerobic, this allows them to thrive and divide more rapidly, thus fueling cancer.“Red Blood Cells are your oxygen carriers. Did you know that once a Cancer Patient begins Chemo and Radiation treatments all Cancer patients have 2 things in common irregardless of the type of Cancer they have? They will become highly acidic and anemic which can lead to a myriad of health problems. Acid drives out Oxygen and creates an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer & other degenerative diseases love and thrive in.
The reason, many Cancer patients are Anemic, is because Acid drives out the Oxygen found in a Red Blood Cell. As that Red Blood Cell(full of Oxygen) travels from the Heart to the rest of the body, the amount of Oxygen in that Red Blood Cell can be diminished depending on the Acid atmosphere it is traveling through. Did you know that advanced Cancer Patients are usually 1000 times more acidic than a healthy human being? 

This low oxygen atmosphere is the perfect breeding ground for Cancer and may be the very reason why advanced Cancer Patients rarely recover. In the presence of this toxic Acid Atmosphere, Tumors and Cancer cells continue to multiply out of control. The greater the tumor mass becomes or the greater the cancer cell volume in the body becomes, each Cancer Patient is put at higher risk of developing a life threatening condition called Cachexia.

So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves, how much sense does it make to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? By a matter of deduction and the use of common sense once again, wouldn’t that create an even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for Cancer to wreak havoc? 


3. Killing a vital organ:

Chemotherapy and radiation often kill a patient’s vital organ such as the liver or heart. A metal found in at least three types of chemotherapy is virtually guaranteed to kill the patient from heart disease. Once the damage is done, nothing, not even alternative cancer treatments can not save the patient.

While there are almost 400 plus alternative cancer treatments that will help significantly newly diagnosed cancer patients, very few of these treatments will be helpful for someone who has had a large number of conventional cancer treatments (chemotherapy / radiation), since most alternative cancer treatments are not sufficiently powerful or not working fast enough for those affected by chemo / radiation.

In fact there are only about 15 alternative cancer treatments that can provide a patient with advanced cancer who is in critical condition, affected by chemo and radiation a hope of survival.

I described advanced treatments tah t fall in this last category (alternative cancer treatments for advanced cancer patients affected by chemo / radiation ) in my book (of course, being strong enough for advanced cases , they are implicitly suitable for newly diagnosed as well, but it is important to keep in mind that those newly diagnosed benefit from enormous advantage of not being destroyed by chemo / radiation therapy.)

I will  write an article about what strategies are to be  followed by those affected massively by chemo / radiation.


4. Chemotherapy and radiation are carcinogenic:

Chemotherapy and radiation can dramatically increase the likelihood that a person will get certain types of cancer. For example, many women treated by chemotherapy and radiotherapy for breast cancer later develop cervical cancer. And the same applies for most types of cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are not only toxic, they are carcinogenic.


In addition to the above, others can be mentioned, including the destructive impact upon  one’s psyche : many cancer patients are so devastated by side effects from conventional treatments that they lose the will to live, which means they lose their will to continue their fight against cancer.


The above list is a very small list of side effects of conventional cancer treatments. If you are interested in finding out more , perform a google search for keywords such as  Burzinki video – “Cancer is a Serious Business” or “Cancer does not scare me Anymore”  – Lorraine Day, MD, chief of surgery cured by Gerson therapy


Also, see this article by Mike Addam and ask yourself the “10 questions about the cancer industry” !.


Are you still surprised that the major studies mentioned above all gave the same conclusion: there is no scientific evidence to show that conventional treatments can extend  or improve the life of most cancer patients?


 Experts speak of the war on cancer and conventional treatments:


“If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.” Professor Charles Mathe,cancer specialist


“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” Linus Pauling Ph.D. – the only 2 undivided  Nobel Prize winner


” Nobody today can say that one does not know what the prime cause of cancer is. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse for avoiding measures for prevention. That the prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt as mankind wants to survive. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of men and women must die of cancer unnecessarily.” Dr. Otto Wartburg,  Nobel Prize Winner 1931 for primary cause of cancer –  that is found in every case of the disease(more details in a future post).

Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize for determining the shape of the DNA. In the 1970’s, member of and advisor for the National Cancer Council In 1975 , asked about the program,he said:

“It’s a bunch of shit.”


“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that kills people left and right just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that other poison.“, Glen Warner – oncologist


“Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough.”, Dr Diamond, M.D.


“I declare flat as usual treatments in hospitals today for tumors, most likely lead to a quick death or disease worsening and causing faster cancer in healthy people”  Dr.Johanna Budwig, a former senior expert of the German Government in fats and medications ,nominated 7 times for the Nobel Prize


“I look upon cancer in the same way as heart disease, arthritis, hypertension, or obesity. In this way, by consolidating the body’s immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can get rid of cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. 

Therefore, I would not do chemotherapy and radiation because I’m not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of patients with cancer. ” Julian Whitaker, MD


Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently:

“After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded “…patients are as well, or better off untreated. Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been refuted.”  


 Phillip E. Binzel,MDAlive and Well, Chapter 14:

There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer.

There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease.

There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease.

How do we know?

Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as “survival time.” Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease.

In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing! We are treating the symptom — the tumor, and we are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. The only thing known to mankind today that will prevent the spread of cancer within the body is for that body’s own defense mechanisms to once again function normally. That’s what nutritional therapy does. It treats the defense mechanism, not the tumor.


Since the 1920s, more than 400 alterantive treatments for cancer have been developed that are far superior to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Every one of these treatment plans, yield better cure rates and less pain.

“There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology centres. They have too much of an interest in the status quo.” Dr Robert Atkins, M.D.


In my next articles, I will discuss more about  alternative cancer treating options.

For those of you interested of alternative cancer treatments right now, good places to start are searching the internet (including sites such as and others for keywords and names like:

Otto Wartburg ( Oxygen & Alkalinity ),  Linus Pauling Ph. D/Dr. Avram Hoffer, MD, Ph.D (vitamin C & respiratory vitamins ), Keith Brewer, Dr. H. Nieper, H.E. Sartori (Cesium , Potassium,Rubidium, Calcium), metabolic & enzyme therapies: John Beard, MD, William Donald Kelly, DDS, Philip E. Binzel MD(laetrile/vitamin B17), Gonzalez MD, Rudolf Breuss, MD, Johanna Brandt (grape cure), Renee Caisse, RN(Essiac Tea),  Johanna Budwig (omega3 – sulphur protein), Stanislaw Burzinki MD(antineoplastons),  Joseff Issels Ph.D (integrative immune therapy),  Bob Beck Ph.D (immune system supercharging ), Dr. Royal Raymond Rife,  Dr. Ann Wigmore, William Koch, MD, Ph.D.,  Henry Schroeder, Ph D., Weston Price, DDS, Bernard Jensen, ND, DC, and many , many others – I will write about them, their scientific research and cancer treatments in my future posts  )


you can find some of the best alternative cancer treatment options described in my book , wich is currently available for just 15 usd (a little lower price that other similar books – see more about my book CLICK HERE.


So how can we justify the use of conventional cancer treatments?

Everyone knows that surgery and especially chemotherapy and radiation cause a patient to become even sicker and do massive damage to the body, organs, immune system, help cancer spread and long-term side effects include cancer, and , most important, reduce dramatically the time to live  (without any treatment) and the quality of life!

How can we justify the use of these three treatments?

Please leave your comments below!

Once again, I cannot make decisions for other people’s lives, but I can accurately inform you about what studies say and let you know of your best treatment options so that you can make an informed decision, based on facts, in order to maximize your chances of beating your cancer.


If you like this article , you can give it a like and share it with others by the buttons located below this page. It is free and this way, you can both show your appreciation and support as well as let others know about facts!


Best of health,

Cristian Gologan


Sources for this article include:

cancertutor. com

If you considered the information above useful you can also let other people know by using the sharing buttons located below this page.

Cristian Gologan