|
|
The
Hoax Of The "Proven" Cancer Cures
An excerpt from World
Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin
| |
The
effects of surgery and radiation in
the treatment of cancer; a
comparison showing that those who
receive no treatment at all live
just as long, if not longer, than
those who are treated.
|
The advocates of Laetrile therapy have
always emphasized that there is no cure, as
such, for cancer. Since it is essentially a
deficiency disease, one can only speak of
prevention or control but not cure. Among
the advocates of orthodox therapies,
however, there is no such restraint.
Official spokesmen for the cancer industry
tell the American public, without batting an
eyelash, that they have proven cures for
cancer, and that anyone who resorts to such
nostrums as Laetrile is merely wasting
valuable time in which he would be far
better off availing himself of these proven
cures. What are these cures? They are
surgery, radiation, and drugs. The following
report carried in a Los Angeles paper is
typical:
Warnings of a mounting scale of cancer
quackery activity affecting the San Fernando
Valley were issued today by the American
Cancer Society. Mrs. Stanley Grushesky,
Education Chairman of the Society's Valley
area, said she is concerned over the
possibility that some local residents have
been deceived in recent weeks by propaganda
issued on behalf of unorthodox practitioners
with claims of unproven cancer cures. She
declared that "under the banners of freedom
of speech, with the slogan of freedom of
choice, advocates of unorthodox cancer
remedies have been making wild claims which
could easily lure unsuspecting victims into
a quackery mill."... Mrs. Grushesky said
that surgery and radiation are the only
known methods for successfully treating
cancer, although some beneficial effects
have been obtained in certain cases through
the administration of chemicals or
hormones....
"Cancer quackery kills many
unsuspecting patients because time wasted on
phony devices and treatments delays
effective treatment until it is too late to
save the patient's life."1
Echoing the same theme, Dr. Ralph
Weilerstein of the Califor-nia Department of
Public Health declared: The use of Laetrile
in early cancer cases to the exclusion of
conventional treatment might well be
dangerous since treatment with acceptable,
modern curative methods-surgery or
radiation-would thereby be delayed
potentially until such time as metastases
had occurred and the cancer, therefore,
might no longer be curable.2
Public Library reference volumes on cancer
often contain bookmarks distributed by the
American Cancer Society. One of these
depicts an ace of spades along with the
slogan: THE UNPROVEN CANCER CURE. DON'T BET
YOUR LIFE ON IT. On the back it says: "For
more information on proven cancer cures,
write or phone the American Cancer Society."
In response, the author sent a letter to the
ACS headquarters expressing surprise at the
assertion that there is any cancer therapy
successful enough to warrant being called a
proven cure. This is the reply received:
To Mr. G. Edward Griffin: Thank
you for your note. There are proven cures -
if detected in time-surgery and/or radiation
and, more and more, chemotherapy is playing
its part.3
This, then, is the position of orthodox
medicine. Therefore, let us take a look at
the results and benefits of the so-called
cures obtained through surgery, radiation,
and chemotherapy. Surgery is the least
harmful of the three. In some cases, it can
be a life-saving, stop-gap
measure-particularly where intestinal
blockages must be relieved to prevent
immediate death from secondary
complications. Surgery also has the
psychological advantage of visibly removing
the tumor. From that point of view, it
offers the temporary comfort and hope.
However, the degree to which surgery is
useful is the same degree to which the tumor
is not malignant, The greater the proportion
of cancer cells in that tumor, the less
likely it is that surgery will help. The
most highly malignant tumors of all
generally are considered inoperable.
A further complication of surgery is
the fact that cutting into the tumor-even
for a biopsy-does two things that aggravate
the condition. First, it causes physical
trauma to the area. This triggers off the
healing process which, in turn, brings more
trophoblast cells into being as a by-product
of that process. (See Chapter IV.) The other
effect is that, if not all the malignant
tissue is removed, what remains tends to be
encased in scar tissue from the surgery Scar
tissue tends to act as a barrier between the
cancer cell and the rest of the body
Consequently, the cancer tends to become
insulated from the action of the pancreatic
enzymes which, as we have seen, are so
essential in exposing trophoblast cells to
the surveillant action of the white blood
cells.
Perhaps the greatest indictment of
all against surgery is the gnawing suspicion
among even many of the world's top surgeons
that, statistically, there is no solid
evidence that patients who submit to surgery
have any greater life expectancy, on the
average, than those who do not. This is an
area which desperately needs intensive and
unbiased study The first statistical
analysis of this question was compiled in
1844 by Dr. Leroy d'Etoilles and published
by the French Academy of Science. It is, to
date, the most extensive study of its kind
ever released. Over a period of thirty
years, case histories of 2,781 patients were
submitted by 174 physicians. The average
survival after surgery was only one year and
five months-not much different than the
average today.
Dr. Leroy d'Etoilles separated his
statistics according to whether the patient
submitted to surgery or caustics, or refused
such treatment. His findings were electric:
The net value of surgery or caustics
was in prolonging life two months for men
and six months for women. But that was only
in the first few years after the initial
diagnosis. After that period, those who had
not accepted treatment had the greater
survival potential by about fifty percent.4
1844 was a long time ago, but more
recent surveys have produced nearly the same
results. For example, it long has been
accepted practice for patients with breast
cancer to have not only the tumor removed
but the entire breast and the lymph nodes as
well. The procedure sometimes included
removal of the ovaries also on the theory
that cancer is stimulated by their hormones.
Finally, in 1961, a large-scale controlled
test was begun, called the National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast Project. After
seven-and-a-half years of statistical
analysis, the results were conclusive: There
was no significant difference between the
percentage of patients remaining alive who
had received the smaller operation and those
who had received the larger.5
A similar study conducted between 1984 and
1990 at the University of California-Irvine
College of Medicine produced the same
conclusion: "All other factors being equal,
there is no difference between BCS
[breast-conserving surgery] and total
mastectomy in either disease-free or overall
survival."6
One of the nation's top statisticians
in the field of cancer is Hardin B. Jones,
Ph.D., former professor of medical physics
and physiology at the University of
California at Berkeley. After years of
analyzing clinical records, this is the
report he delivered at a convention of the
American Cancer Society:
In regard to surgery, no relationship
between intensity of surgical treatment and
duration of survival has been found in
verified malignancies. On the contrary,
simple excision of cancers has produced
essentially the same survival as radical
excision and dissection of the lymphatic
drainage.7 That
data, of course, related to surgery of the
breast. Turning his attention to surgery in
general, Dr. Jones continued: Although there
is a dearth of untreated cases for
statistical comparison with the treated, it
is surprising that the death risks of the
two groups remain so similar. In the
comparisons it has been assumed that the
treated and untreated cases are independent
of each other. In fact, that assumption is
incorrect. Initially, all cases are
untreated. With the passage of time, some
receive treatment, and the likelihood of
treatment increases with the length of time
since origin of the disease. Thus, those
cases in which the neoplastic process
progresses slowly [and thus automatically
favors a long-term survival] are more likely
to become "treated" cases. For the same
reason, however, those individuals are
likely to enjoy longer survival, whether
treated or not. Life tables truly
representative of untreated cancer patients
must be adjusted for the fact that the
inherently longer-lived cases are more
likely to be transferred to the "treated"
category than to remain in the "untreated
until death."
The apparent life expectancy of
untreated cases of cancer after such
adjustment in the table seems to be greater
than that of the treated cases. [Emphasis
added] What, then, is the statistical chance
for long-term survival of five years or more
after surgery? That, we are told, depends on
the location of the cancer, how fast it is
growing, and whether it has spread to a
secondary point. For example, two of the
most common forms of cancer requiring
surgery are of the breast and the lung. With
breast cancer, only sixteen percent will
respond favorably to surgery or X-ray
therapy With lung cancer, the percentage of
patients who will survive five years after
surgery is somewhere between five and ten
percent.8 And
these are optimis-tic figures when compared
to survival expectations for some other
types of cancers such as testicular
chorionepitheliomas. When we turn to cancers
which have metastasized to secon-dary
locations, the picture becomes virtually
hopeless-surgery or no surgery As one cancer
specialist summarized it bluntly:
A patient who has clinically
detectable distant metastases when first
seen has virtually a hopeless prognosis, as
do patients who were apparently free of
distant metastases at that time but who
subsequently return with distant metastases.9
An objective appraisal, therefore, is
that the statistical rate of long-term
survival after surgery is, on the average at
best, only ten or fifteen percent. And once
the cancer has metastasized to a second
location, surgery has almost no survival
value. The reason is that, like the other
therapies approved by orthodox medicine,
surgery removes only the tumor. It does not
remove the cause. The rationale behind X-ray
therapy is the same as with surgery. The
objective is to remove the tumor, but to do
so by burning it away rather than cutting it
out. Here, also, it is primarily the
non-cancer cell that is destroyed. The more
malig-nant the tumor, the more resistant it
is to radio therapy If this were not so,
then X-ray therapy would have a high degree
of success-which, of course, it does not. If
the average tumor is composed of both cancer
and non-cancer cells, and if radiation is
more destructive to non-cancer cells than to
cancer cells, then it would be logical to
expect the results to be a reduction of
tumor size, but also an increase in the
percentage of malignancy. This is, in fact,
exactly what happens. Commenting on this
mechanism, Dr. John Richardson explained it
this way:
Radiation and/or radiomimetic poisons
will reduce palpable, gross or measurable
tumefaction. Often this reduction may amount
to seventy-five percent or more of the mass
of the growth. These agents have a selective
effect-radiation and poisons. They
selec-tively kill everything except the
definitively neoplastic [cancer] cells. For
example, a benign uterine myoma will usually
melt away under radiation like snow in the
sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such
tumor, these will remain. The size of the
tumor may thus be decreased by ninety
percent while the relative concentration of
definitively neoplastic cells is thereby
increased by ninety percent. As all
experienced clinicians know-or at least
should know- after radiation or poisons have
reduced the gross tumefaction of the lesion
the patient's general well-being does not
substantially im-prove. To the contrary,
there is often an explosive or fulminating
increase in the biological malignancy of his
lesion. This is marked by the appearance of
diffuse metastasis and a rapid deterioration
in general vitality followed shortly by
death.10
And so we see that X-ray therapy is
cursed with the same drawbacks of surgery.
But it has one more: It actually increases
the likelihood that cancer will develop in
other parts of the body! Excessive exposure
to radioactivity is an effective way to
induce cancer. This was first demonstrated
by observing the increased cancer incidence
among the survivors of Hiroshima, but it has
been corroborated by many independent
studies since then. For example, a recent
headline in a national-circulation newspaper
tells us: FIND 'ALARMING' NUMBER OF CANCER
CASES IN PEOPLE WHO HAD X-RAY THERAPY 20
YEARS AGO.11
The Textbook of Medical Surgical Nursing, a
standard reference for Registered Nurses, is
most emphatic on this point. It says:
This is an area of public health
concern because it may involve large numbers
of people who may be exposed to low levels
of radiation over a long period of time. The
classic example is of the women employed in
the early 1920's to paint watch and clock
dials with luminizing (radium containing)
paints. Years later, bone sarco-mas resulted
from the carcinogenic effect of the radium.
Similarly, leukemia occurs more frequently
in radiologists than other physi-cians.
Another example is the Hiroshima survivors
who have shown the effects of low levels of
radiation.... Among the most serious of the
late consequences of irradiation damage is
the increased susceptibility to malignant
metaplasia and the development of cancer at
sites of earlier irradiation. Evidence cited
in support of this relationship refers to
the increased incidence of carcinoma of
skin, bone, and lung after latent periods of
20 years and longer following irradiation of
those sites. Further support has been
adduced from the relatively high incidence
of carcinoma of the thyroid 7 years and
longer following low-dosage irradiation of
the thymus in childhood, and from the
increased incidence of leukemia following
total body irradiation at any age.
In 1971, a research team at the
University of Buffalo, under the direction
of Dr. Robert W. Gibson, reported that less
than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the
same part of the body increases the12
risk of leukemia in males by at least sixty
percent. Other scientists have become
increasingly concerned about the growing
American infatuation with X-rays and have
urged a stop to the madness, even calling
for an end to the mobile chest X-ray units
for the detection of TB.13
And these "routine" X-rays are harm-lessly
mild compared to the intense radiation
beamed into the bodies of cancer patients
today X-rays induce cancer because of at
least two factors. First, they do physical
damage to the body which triggers the
production of trophoblast cells as part of
the healing process. Second, they weaken or
destroy the production of white blood cells
which, as we have seen, constitute the
immunological defense mechanism, the body's
front-line defense against cancer. Now to
the question of statistics. Again we find
that, on the average, there is little or no
solid evidence that radiation actually
improves the patient's chances for survival.
The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast
Project, previously mentioned in connection
with surgery, also conducted studies on the
effect of irradiation, and here is a summary
of their findings:
From the data available it would seem
that the use of post-operative irradiation
has provided no discernible advantage to
patients so treated in terms of increasing
the proportion who were free of disease for
as long as five years.14
This is an embarrassingly difficult
fact for a radiologist to face, for it
means, quite literally, that there is little
justification for his existence in the
medical fraternity. If he were to admit
publicly what he knows privately, a guy
could talk himself right out of a job!
Consequently, one does not expect to hear
these facts being discussed by radiologists
or those whose livelihood depends on the
construction, sale, installation, use, or
maintenance of the multi-million-dollar
linear accelerators. It comes as a pleasant
surprise, therefore, to hear these truths
spoken frankly and openly by three well
known radiologists sharing the same platform
at the same medical convention. They were
William Powers, M.D., Director of the
Division of Radiation Therapy at the
Washington University School of Medicine,
Phillip Rubin, M.D., Chief of the Division
of Radiotherapy at the University of
Rochester Medical School, and Vera Peters,
M.D., of the Princess Margaret Hospital in
Toronto, Canada. Dr. Powers stated:
Although preoperative and
postoperative radiation therapy have been
used extensively and for decades, it is
still not possible to prove unequivocal
clinical benefit from this combined
treatment.... Even if the rate of cure does
improve with a combination of radiation and
therapy, it is necessary to establish the
cost in increased morbidity which may occur
in patients without favorable response to
the additional therapy.15
What Dr. Powers means when he speaks
of "increased morbidity" is that radiation
treatments make people ill. In a study at
Oxford University dealing with breast
cancer, it was found that many women who
received radiation died of heart attacks
because their hearts had been weakened by
the treatment.16
Radiation also weakens the immune system
which can lead to death from secondary
causes such as pneumonia or other internal
infections. Many patients whose death
certificates state heart failure or
pulmonary pneumonia or respiratory failure
really die from cancer-or, to be more
exact-from their cancer treatment. This is
another reason that cancer statistics-based
as they are on data from death
certificates-conceal the truth about the
failure of orthodox cancer therapy
At the medical
convention of radiologists previously
mentioned, Dr. Phillip Rubin reviewed the
cancer-survival statis-tics published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association.
Then he concluded:
The clinical evidence and statistical
data in numerous reviews are cited to
illustrate that no increase in survival has
been achieved by the addition of
irradiation. To which Dr. Peters added: In
carcinoma of the breast, the mortality rate
still parallels the incidence rate, thus
proving that there has been no true improve-ment
in the successful treatment of the disease
over the past thirty years, even though
there has been technical improvement in both
surgery and radiotherapy during that time.
In spite of the almost universal experience
of physicians to the contrary, the American
Cancer Society still prattles to the public
that their statistics show a higher recovery
rate for treated patients as compared to
untreated patients. After all, if this were
not the case, why on earth would anyone
spend the money or undergo the pain and
disfigurement associated with these orthodox
treat-ments? But how can they get away with
such outright lies? The answer is that they
are not really lying-just bending the truth
a little. In other words, they merely adjust
the method of gathering and evaluating
statistics so as to guarantee the desired
results. In the words of Dr. Hardin Jones:
Evaluation of
the clinical response of cancer to treatment
by surgery and radiation, separately or in
combination, leads to the following
findings:
The evidence for greater survival of
treated groups in compari-son with untreated
is biased by the method of defining the
groups. All reported studies pick up cases
at the time of origin of the disease and
follow them to death or end of the study
interval. If persons in the untreated or
central group die at any time in the study
interval, they are reported as deaths in the
control group. In the treated group,
however, deaths which occur before
completion of the treatment are rejected
from the data, since these patients do not
then meet the criteria established by
definition of the term "treated." The longer
it takes for completion of the treatment, as
in multiple step therapy, for example, the
worse the error.... With this effect
stripped out, the common malignancies show a
remarkably similar rate of demise, whether
treated or untreated.17
But there is far more to it than that.
Such statistical error is significant, but
it is doubtful if it could account for the
American Cancer Society's favorite claim
that "there are on record a million and a
half people cured of cancer through the
efforts of the medical profession and the
American Cancer Society with the help of the
FDA."18 The
answer lies in the fact that there are some
forms of cancer, such as skin cancer, that
respond very well to treatment. In fact,
often they are arrested or disappear even
without treatment. Seldom are they fatal.
But they affect large numbers of people-
enough to change the statistical tabulations
drastically. In the beginning, skin cancers
were not included in the national
tabula-tions. Also, in those days, very few
people sought medical treatment for their
skin disorders, preferring to treat them
with home remedies, many of which,
incidentally seem to have worked just as
well as some of the more scientifically
acceptable techniques today At any rate, as
doctors became more plentiful, as people
became more affluent and able to seek out
professional medical help, and as the
old-time remedies increasingly fell into
disre-pute, the number of reported skin
cancers gradually increased until it is now
listed by the ACS as a "major site." So, all
they had to do
to produce most of those million-and-a-half
"cures," was to change their statistics to
include skin cancers-p resto-chan go! As Dr.
Hardin Jones revealed: Beginning in 1940,
through redefinition of terms, various
questionable grades of malignancy were
classed as cancer. After that date, the
proportion of "cancer" cures having "normal"
life expec-tancy increased rapidly,
corresponding to the fraction of
question-able diagnoses included.19
The American Cancer Society claims
that cancer patients are now surviving
longer, thanks to orthodox therapy In truth,
however, people are not living longer after
they get cancer; they are living longer
after they are diagnosed with cancer. The
trick is that, with modern diagnostic
techniques, it is possible to identify
cancer at an earlier stage than before. So
the time between diagnosis and death is
longer, but the length of life itself has
not been increased at all.20
This is merely another statistical
deception.
When X-ray therapy is used, the
body's white blood cell count is reduced
which leaves the patient susceptible to
infections and other diseases as well. It is
common for such patients to succumb to
pneumonia, for instance, rather than cancer.
And, as stated previously, that is what
appears on the death certificate-as well as
in the statistics. As Dr. Richardson has
observed: I have seen patients who have been
paralyzed by cobalt spine radiation, and
after vitamin treatment their HCG test is
faintly positive. We got their cancer, but
the radiogenic manipulation is such that
they can't walk.... It's the cobalt that
will kill, not the cancer.21
If the patient is strong enough or lucky
enough to survive the radiation, then he
still faces a closed door. As with all forms
of currently popular treatments, once the
cancer has metastasized to a second
location, there is practically no chance
that the patient will live. So, in addition
to an almost zero survival value, radio
therapy has the extra distinction of also
spreading the very cancer it is supposed to
combat.
One of the most publicized claims by
The American Cancer Society is that early
diagnosis and treatment increases the chance
of survival. This is one of those slogans
that drives millions of people into their
doctors' offices for that mystical
experience called the annual checkup. "A
check and a checkup" may be an effective
stimulus for revenue to the cancer industry
but its medical value is not as proven as
the hype would suggest. As Dr. Hardin Jones
stated emphatically:
In the matter of duration of malignant
tumors before treatment, no studies have
established the much talked about
relationship between early detection and
favorable survival after treatment....
Serious attempts to relate prompt treatment
with chance of cure have been unsuccessful.
In some types of cancer, the opposite of the
expected association of short duration of
symptoms with a high chance of being "cured"
has been observed. A long duration of
symptoms before treatment in a few cancers
of the breast and cervix is associated with
longer than usual survival.... Neither the
timing nor the extent of treatment of the
true malignancies has appreciably altered
the average course of the disease. The
possibility exists that treatment makes the
average situation worse.
22
In view of all this,
it is exasperating to find spokesmen for
orthodox medicine continually warning the
public against using Laetrile on the grounds
that it will prevent cancer patients from
benefiting from "proven" cures. The
pronouncement by Dr. Ralph Weilerstein of
the California Department of Public Health
cited at the opening of this chapter is
typical. But Dr. Weilerstein is vulnerable
on two points. First, it is very rare to
find any patient seeking Laetrile therapy
who hasn't already been subjected to the
so-called "modern curative methods" of
surgery and radiation. In fact, most of them
have been pronounced hopeless after these
methods have failed, and it is only then
that these people turn to vitamin therapy as
a last resort. So Dr. Weilerstein has set up
a straw-man objection on that score. But,
more important than that is the fact that
the Weilersteinian treatments simply do not
work. Battling as a lone warrior within the
enemy stronghold, Dr. Dean Burk of the
National Cancer Institute repeatedly has
laid it on the line. In a letter to his
boss, Dr. Frank Rauscher, he said: In spite
of the foregoing evidence,.., officials of
the American Cancer Society and even of the
National Cancer Institute, have continued to
set forth to the public that about one in
every four cancer cases is now "cured" or
"controlled," but seldom if ever backed up
with the requisite statistical or
epidemiological support for such a statement
to be scientifically meaningful, however
effective for fund gathering. Such a
statement is highly misleading, since it
hides the fact that, with systemic or
metastatic cancers, the actual rate of
control in terms of the conventional
five-year survival is scarcely more than one
in twenty.. One may well ask Dr. Weilerstein
where are all the modern curative methods to
which he, the California Cancer Advisory
Council, and indeed so many administrators
so glibly refer?... No, disseminated cancer,
in its various forms and kinds remains, by
and large, as "incurable" as at the time of
the Kefauver Amendment ten years ago-Dr.
Weilerstein or no Dr. Weilerstein, FDA or no
FDA, ACS or no ACS, AMA or no AMA, NCI or no
NCI.23
The statistics of
the ACS are fascinating to study They
constitute page after page of detailed
tables and complex charts telling about
percentages of cancer by location, sex, age,
and geography But when it comes to hard
numbers about their so-called "proven
cures," there is nothing. The only
"statistic" one can get is their unsupported
statement: "One out of three patients is
being saved today as against one out of five
a generation ago." This may or may not be
true, depending on one's definition of the
word saved. But even if we do not challenge
it, we must keep in mind that there also is
a correspondingly larger gain in the number
of those who are getting cancer. Why is
that? Here is the official explanation:
Major factors are
the increasing age and size of the
population. Science has conquered many
diseases, and the average life span of
Americans has been extended. Longer life
brings man to the age in which cancer most
often strikes-from the fifth decade on.
All of which sounds plausible-until
one examines the facts: First, the
increasing size of the population has
nothing to do with it. The statistics of
"one out of three" and "one out of five" are
proportional rather than numerical. They
represent ratios that apply regardless of
the population size. They cannot explain the
increasing cancer rate. Second, the average
life expectancy of the population has been
extended less than three years between 1980
to 1996. That could not possibly account for
the drastic increase of the cancer death
rate within that time. And third, increasing
age need not be a factor, anyway-as the
cancer-free Hunzakuts and Abkhazians prove
quite conclu-sively For a brief moment in
1986, the clouds of propaganda parted and a
sun-ray of truth broke through into the
medical media. The New England Journal of
Medicine published a report by John C.
Bailar III and Elaine M. Smith. Dr. Bailar
was with the Depart-ment of Biostatistics at
Harvard School of Public Health; Dr. Smith
was with the University of Iowa Medical
Center. Their report was brutal in its
honesty:
Some measures of efforts to control
cancer appear to show substantial progress,
some show substantial losses, and some show
little change. By making deliberate choices
among these measures, one can convey any
impression from overwhelming success against
cancer to disaster. Our choice for the
single best measure of progress against
cancer is the mortality rate for all forms
of cancer combined, age adjusted to the U.S.
1980 standard. This measure removes the
effects of changes in the size and age
composition of the population, prevents the
selective reporting of data to support
particular views, minimizes the effects of
changes in diagnostic criteria related to
recent advances in screening and detection,
and directly measures the outcome of
greatest concern-death.... Age-adjusted
mortality rates have shown a slow and steady
increase over several decades, and there is
no evidence of a recent downward trend. In
this clinical sense we are losing the war
against cancer.... The main conclusion we
draw is that some 35 years of intense effort
focused on improving treatment must be
judged a qualified failure.24
It is clear that
the American Cancer Society-or at least
someone very high within it-is trying to
give the American people a good
old-fashioned snow job. The truth of the
matter is-ACS statistics
notwithstanding-orthodox medicine simply
does not have "proven cancer cures," and
what it does have is pitifully inadequate
considering the prestige it enjoys, the
money it collects, and the snobbish scorn it
heaps upon those who do not wish to
subscribe to its treatments.
1. "Amer. Cancer Soc. Warns of Valley
Quacks," The Valley News (Van Nuys, Calif.),
Dec. 10, 1972.
2. As quoted in College of Mann Times
(Kentfield, Calif.), April 26, 1972.
3. Letter from Mabel Burnett dated Dec. 18,
1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.
4. Walter H. Walshe, The Anatomy,
Physiology, Pathology and Treatment of
Cancer, (Boston: Ticknor & Co., 1844).
5. Ravdin, R.G., et.al., "Results of a
Clinical Trial Conceming The Worth of
Prophylactic Oophorectomy for Breast
Carcinoma," Surgery, Gynecology &
Obstet-rics, 131:1055, Dec., 1970. Also see
"Breast Cancer Excision Less with
Selection," Medical Tribune, Oct. 6, 1971,
p. 1.
6. "Treatment Differences and Other
Prognostic Factors Related to Breast Cancer
Survival: Delivery Systems and Medical
Outcomes," by Anna Lee-Feldstein, Hoda
Anton-Culver, and Paul I. Feldstein, Journal
of the American Medical Association,
ISSN:0098-7484, April 20, 1994.
7. Hardm B. Jones, Ph.D. "A Report on
Cancer," paper delivered to the ACS's 11th
Annual Science Writers Conference, New
Orleans, Mar. 7, 1969.
8. See "Results of Treatment of Carcinoma of
the Breast Based on Pathological Staging,"
by F.R.C. Johnstone, M.D., Surgery,
Gynecology & Obstetrics, 134:211, 1972. Also
"Consultant's Comment," by George Crile,
Jr., M.D., Calif Medical Digest, Aug., 1972,
p. 839. Also "Project Aims at Better Lung
Cancer Survival," Medical Tribune, Oct. 20,
1971. Also statement by Dr. Lewis A. Leone,
Director of the Department of Oncology at
Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, as
quoted in "Cancer Controls Still
Unsuccessful," L.A. Herald Examiner, June 6,
1972, p. C-12.
9. Johnstone, "Results of Treatment of
Carcinoma of the Breast," op. cit.
10. National Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1973, p. 29.
11. Brunner, Emerson, Ferguson, and Doris
Suddarth, Textbook of Medical-Surgical
Nursing, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.,
1970) 2nd Edition, p. 198.
12."Too Many X-Rays Increase Risk of
Leukemia, Study Indicates," National
Enquirer, Dec. 5, 1971, p. 13."Top FDA
Officials Warn: Chest X-Rays in Mobile Vans
Are Dangerous and Must Be Stopped," National
Enquirer. Sept. 10, 1972, p. 8.
14. Fisher, B., et. aL, "Postoperative
Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Breast
Cancer; Results of the NSAPP Clinical
Trial," Annals of Surgery 172, No.4, Oct.
1970.
15. "Preoperative and Postoperative
Radiation Therapy for Cancer," speech
delivered to the Sixth National Cancer
Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer
Society and the National Cancer Institute,
Denver, Colorado, Sept. 18-20, 1968.
16. Breast Cancer Update/Q & A, by Ridgely
Ochs, Newsday, December 19, 1995, p. B23.
17. Jones, "A Report on Cancer," op. cit.
18. Letter from Mrs. Glenn E. Baker,
Executive Director, Southern District, ACS,
addressed to Mr. T.G. Kent, reprinted in
Cancer News Journal. Jan/Feb., 1972, p. 22.
19. Jones, "A Report on Cancer," op.cit.
20. Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How
Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know
About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995),
p. 4.
21. Letter from John Richardson, M.D., to G.
Edward Griffin, dated Dec. 2, 1972; Griffin,
Private Papers, op. cit.
22. Letter from Dean Burk to Frank Rauscher;
Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 3.
23. Letter from Dean Burk to Congressman
Frey; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.,
p.5.
24. "Progress Against Cancer?", New England
Journal of Medicine, May 8, 1986, p. 1231
|
|
