Difference Between Prokaryotic And Eukaryotic Cell Pdf Reader
Feb 24, 2012. The nucleus of a cell is a structure in the cytoplasm that is surrounded by a membrane (the nuclear membrane) and contains, and protects, most of the cell's DNA. Based on whether they have a nucleus, there are two basic types of cells: prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells. You can watch animations of. All organisms are made up of one or more cells. A cell is the basic unit of life. All of these different types of cells are found in the human body. Somewhere between 10 and 100 trillion cells in their body! Cells come in. There are two main types of cells: prokaryotic and eukaryotic. All organisms are.
Webster Kehr 2003 from Website About This Ebook This eBook is more technical and detailed than the 'Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments' eBook. For example, it details a randomly chosen issue of the Reader's Digest and shows how the large number of pharmaceutical advertisements correlates with the large number of articles in the magazine which glorify orthodox medicine. But the real power of this book is in its discussions of the tactics of the pharmaceutical industry, the media and the FDA. Great detail is shown for how these three entities manipulate and control information. Also, in this book is a chapter on how Linus Pauling, PhD (two-time Nobel Prize winner) and Dr. Ewan Cameron, M.D.
(actually M.B. In Scotland) demonstrated that Vitamin C, given in moderate doses, provided far, far better results for cancer patients than orthodox cancer treatments. The two-time Nobel Prize winner and medical doctor infuriated the medical establishment because they had integrity!! The tactics to discredit the Pauling/Cameron research are studied in detail.
In short, this eBook is for those who want to dig deeper into the tactics of the medical establishment, the media, the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • •. Introduction We live in a world of 'fast foods,' 'fast cars,' and fast answers or should I say: 'shallow answers.' Executives don't like to read reports of more than one or two pages.
People want to learn everything they need to know about something by watching a 1/2 hour television show. Students want to learn complicated mathematics while they play video games. Unfortunately, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments are not simple subjects. They are complicated. Plus it is impossible to overcome decades of constant false information by reading for half an hour. So grab something to drink, settle into your seat, and grab your computer mouse, because this is not going to be a short story, nor will it be entertaining. Let us start with a metaphor.
The Small Town Metaphor Let us suppose you move to a new town, in fact a small town with only two car repair shops (i.e. One of them is owned by Jim. The other by Bob. Jim's garage is by far the biggest garage, he has lots of customers. The problem is that Jim's mechanics are not very good because they have had very poor training. In fact, most of the time the cars they have 'repaired' are in worse shape when they are done, than when the car first came in.
Most people put up with Jim and just live with the shoddy work. However, some people go to Bob's garage, usually after they have gone to Jim's garage first. While Jim's garage charges an average of $1,500 per car repair job, Bob's garage only charges $75 per car repair job.
Furthermore, in over 90% of the time, Bob's garage completely fixes the cars of its customers, including the extra damage done by Jim's garage. You are new to the town, and wonder why anyone would ever take their car to Jim's garage and why everyone doesn't take their car to Bob's garage first. Then one day as you are reading the newspaper you see part of the problem. Jim is so rich he has several large ads in the newspaper every day. Bob rarely advertises, and when he does he usually gets a visit from the police, and it is not a friendly visit.
It seems that all prior policemen in the town now work at Jim's garage, and the current policemen look forward to a cushy job at Jim's garage. You also note that the newspaper has an article virtually every day about how good Jim's garage is. They interview satisfied customers, interview the mechanics, and make the mechanics sound like geniuses.
You also read about how the mechanics at Jim's garage are constantly striving to get better and better equipment. But you note that the better and better equipment they talk about doesn't improve anything, it just increases the cost of their repairs. You also note that the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce, etc. All strongly endorse Jim's garage.
You also note that many of these influential people are highly paid part-time salesmen for Jim's garage. You also note that Jim contributes significantly to the local schools, and that the children are taught how good Jim's garage is. Finally you realize there is a war going on between Jim's garage and Bob's garage and that those in power in the town are more interested in which garage offers them the most benefits, than in which garage has the best mechanics. You see that the political machine in town does everything in their power to crush Bob's garage.
But above all, you note that month after month, year after year, Jim's garage prices keep growing and growing, it makes obscene profits, and usually does more damage than good in repairing the cars. You also note that those small number of people who later go to Bob's garage usually get their car completely fixed for less than $100.
What Is Wrong With This Picture? What I have just described is the war in modern medicine with regards to cancer treatments. Orthodox medicine ('Big Pharma') is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and has total control over the news media due to the massive amounts of advertising dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you saw a 1/2 hour television show where the main speaker was a doctor who used alternative treatments for cancer? Try to name 10 of the 'top 100' best alternative treatments for cancer. Would it surprise you that the pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars in profits on chemotherapy drugs every year?
Also controls many other aspects of life in America due to their many billions of dollars of clout. It turns out that there are a lot of people who will quickly 'look the other way' for the right price. Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is very poorly organized, equally poorly funded, disjointed, and severely persecuted by orthodox medicine.
People in America, unfortunately, generally make their key decisions based solely on what they hear on television. Yet, the fact that orthodox medicine has lots of money, and alternative medicine is disjointed, has nothing to do with which type of medicine has the best treatments for cancer. It only has to do with which side has had the most money for the longest amount of time.
It is like the above metaphor: just because Jim's garage makes far more money than Bob's garage, and does far more advertising, doesn't mean Jim's garage charges a fair price and does a better job. While orthodox medicine generally uses surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, alternative medicine uses treatment plans with names like: • Kelley Metabolic • Breuss Tea • Budwig Flaxseed • Brandt Grape Cure • Essiac Tea, etc. Did you recognize any of the treatments I just mentioned under alternative medicine?
You probably didn't. Yet if you have, and if you make the wrong treatment decision, it could cost you your life!
That's right - your own life. Before you brush-off this war as being unimportant to you, keep that in mind.
You probably think that this war is about medical theory, and that one side believes in the 'germ theory' of disease and the other side believes in the 'nutritional theory' of disease. Or perhaps you think that orthodox medicine is interested in treating 'symptoms,' while alternative medicine is interested in treating 'causes.'
While there are theoretical differences, the war is not caused by differences in medical theory. The war is all about profits. 'We are not dealing with a scientific problem. We are dealing with a political issue.'
The fact of the matter is that this war is a political war. Like all other wars in world history, it is all about money, power and the control of the general public. Most of all it is a war about orthodox medicine maintaining the power they have had since 1910. Our government agencies and the corporations that control them have done everything in their power to make sure you do not know the truth about alternative medicine, and especially alternative treatments for cancer and alternative prevention measures for heart disease. And the are not about to say anything negative about one of their biggest advertisers - the pharmaceutical industry.
So called 'investigative journalists' are never going to investigate the friends of their employer. 'Why does a particular story not receive the coverage it deserves in the media?
While a variety of reasons may be at cause, foremost among them. Seems to be conflict of interest issues involving the financial concerns of major media advertisers.' Peter Phillips, in his book, Before saying more about this war, it is instructive to go back to the beginning, to see why this war started in the first place. The Foundation of the War in Medicine To understand what is going on in medicine we must look to the past.
Consider this article from the North Carolina Museum of History on medicine in the 19 th century and before: 'Just as common as taking medicine for a fever, from the Middle Ages through the mid-1800s, bloodletting was performed on patients to cure disease. Bloodletting is the process of withdrawing blood as a treatment. Most people thought they would die anyway and used bloodletting as a last resort. It began when Greek physician Hippocrates claimed that all diseases occur when there is an imbalance of the four body fluids, otherwise known as humors - black bile, blood, phlegm, and yellow bile. His discovery led to bloodletting. When the blood was drawn from the vein it was believed that the disease would flow out with the blood. The procedure of bloodletting is done by applying either a leech or scarificator that will make the initial puncture.
Then, a heated cup is placed over the wound that will take the additional blood. The process is repeated until all the needed blood is taken. It was also common for the doctors to use pointed sticks, knives, or tiny bows and arrows to draw blood.
These tools were often difficult to use and could result in too much blood withdrawn from the patient and occasionally caused death. A famous victim of bloodletting is George Washington.
He died from being bled heavily as a treatment for laryngitis. Toward the end of the time period in which bloodletting was common, leeches began to be used.
They were considered less painful and withdrew a reliable amount of blood. The peak use of leeches was in the 1830s. Due to the theory of Francois Broussais many doctors used leeching for symptoms such as laryngitis, mental illness, and obesity. [European] leeches were preferred over American leeches, which were said to make too small incisions and to draw less blood than the European species. The use of leeching became so popular that medicinal [American] became an endangered species.' Now suppose that in the 1830s, which was the peak of the use of leeches, the medical community at the time, plus the leech breeders and scarificator makers got together and decided they had a good thing going. Suppose they said that if they abandoned their techniques for newer techniques that their incomes would drop and many jobs would be lost.
Those who grew leeches would make less profits, those who made the scarificators and other instruments would make less profits, the doctors would make less income, and so on. Suppose they all conspired together to suppress all future medical discoveries (made after 1830) in order to maximize their earnings and profits. Had that happened, we would still be using bloodletting, leeches and scarificators for virtually all diseases.
Scientists today would be spending vast amounts of money studying the DNA of the leeches to breed the most efficient leeches. Scientists would be studying the optimum number of leeches to use, and the optimum places on the body to place them for each type of disease.
Scientists would be studying the optimum amount of blood to draw. The instrument makers would be designing high precision instruments to make incisions and suctions, and so on and so forth. The massive dollars they would request from the general public on 'research' would yield a very small, but ever-growing amount of progress. A 'cure' would always be 'just around the corner,' but since their interest was in profits and income, not the health, comfort and survival of their patients, the 'cure' would never come.
They might also figure out ways to cover up the lack of progress in medicine by using creative statistics. They might develop very clever ways to define 'cure rates' in order to hide the fact that there was very little progress being made.
What Has Happened Well, this 'what-if' scenario for the 1830s is exactly what happened in modern medicine around 1910. Only instead of stopping progress with bloodletting and leeches, the medical profession decided to stop all medical progress at the stage of surgery, chemotherapy (which actually came along in the 1940s but it was very profitable so they kept it), and radiation treatments. The original reason for stopping progress was profits. The, the and the (many prescription drugs are made from petroleum products and these three industries had cross-ownership) were afraid that new discoveries might lessen their profits. Using the profits of these industries as bait and influence money, the new mentality spread to Congress, the leadership of the medical industry, and to many other places. The stagnation of progress in treating cancer continues today because the enormously profitable procedures of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation make many, many billions of dollars every year for, • the pharmaceutical industry • the chemical industry • the petroleum industry • medical doctors • hospitals • medical equipment makers • TV stations (through the advertising of the pharmaceutical companies) • radio stations (ditto) • major magazines (ditto) • the ACS (the American Cancer Society is basically a public relations vehicle for orthodox medicine).etc. 'Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol.
They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology.' Dr Warner, M.D. In other words, the medical community has gone along with the idea that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so profitable that there will never be any significant progress in the 'war against cancer.' The leaders have intentionally, willingly, knowingly and pro-actively suppressed every possible advance in cancer treatments for over 80 years, dating back to the 1920s. ( Note: Salvarsan, the first chemotherapy drug, was discovered by Nobel Prize winner Paul Ehrlich in 1909 and was initially used primarily on syphilis.) The Ralph Moss Story, by Ralph Moss 'In 1974, I began working at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the world's leading cancer treatment hospital. I was an idealistic and eager young science writer, sincerely proud to be part of Sloan Kettering and Nixon's 'War On Cancer.'
Ever since I was a kid, my main heroes were scientists (with the Brooklyn Dodgers running a close second!) The job at Sloan-Kettering seemed like a dream come true for me. I wanted to be part of the winning team that finally beat cancer. Within three years, I had risen to the position of Assistant Director of Public Affairs at the Hospital. At the time, I was 34 years old, married to my high-school sweetheart, and we had a daughter and son, then 9 and 7 years old. We had dreams of buying a house and saving for the kids' education, so you can imagine how thrilled we were when I was promoted, with a huge raise, glowing feedback from my bosses, and was told that perks of the job would eventually include reduced tuition for the kids at New York University. Needless to say, we all were really counting on my 'bright future' at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
But something soon happened that changed the course of my life forever. A big part of my job as Assistant Director of Public Affairs was to write press releases for the media about cancer news and to write the in-hospital newsletter.
I also handled calls from the press and public about cancer issues. So I was just doing a normal day's work - or so I thought-when I began interviewing an esteemed scientist at the Hospital for a newsletter article I was working on. It turned out that the scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, had repeatedly gotten positive results shrinking tumors in mice studies with a natural substance called (You may have heard of it as 'laetrile'.) Excitedly (and naively!) I told my 'discovery' of Sugiura's work to the Public Affairs Director and other superiors, and laid out my plans for an article about it. Then I got the shock of my life. They insisted that I stop working on this story immediately and never pick it up again.
They said that Dr. Sugiura's work was invalid and totally meaningless.
But I had seen the results with my own eyes! And I knew Dr. Sugiura was a true scientist and an ethical person.
Then my bosses gave me the order that I'll never forget: They told me to lie. Instead of the story I had been planning to write, they ordered me to write an article and press releases for all the major news stations emphatically stating that all amygdalin studies were negative and that the substance was worthless for cancer treatment. I protested and tried to reason with them, but it fell on deaf ears. I will never forget how I felt on the subway ride home that day. My head was spinning with a mixture of strong feelings- confusion, shock, disappointment, fear for my own livelihood and my family's future, and behind it all, an intense need to know why this cover-up was happening. After long talks with my wife and parents (who were stunned, as you can imagine) I decided to put off writing any amygdalin press releases as long as I could while I discreetly looked into the whole thing some more on my own time. Everyone at the office seemed happy just to drop the whole thing, and we got busy with other less controversial projects.
So in the next few months, I was able to do my own investigating to answer the big question I couldn't let go of: Who were these people I worked for and why would they want to suppress positive results in cancer research? My files grew thick as I uncovered more and more fascinating - and disturbing - facts. I had never given any thought to the politics of cancer before. Now I was putting together the pieces as I learned that: • The people on Sloan-Kettering's Board of Directors were a 'Who's Who' of investors in petrochemical and other polluting industries. In other words, the hospital was being run by people who made their wealth by investing in the worst cancer-causing things on the planet. • CEOs of top pharmaceutical companies that produced cancer drugs also dominated the Board.
They had an obvious vested interest in promoting chemotherapy and undermining natural therapies. • The Chairman and the President of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's leading producer of chemotherapy, held high positions on MSKCC's Board. • Of the nine members of the Hospital's powerful Institutional Policy Committee, seven had ties to the pharmaceutical industry • The Hospital itself invested in the stock of these same drug companies.
• Directors of the biggest tobacco companies in the U.S., Phillip Morris and RJR Nabisco, held places of honor on the Board. • Six Board Directors also served on the Boards of The New York Times, CBS, Warner Communications, Readers Digest, and other media giants. Not surprisingly, profits from chemotherapy drugs were skyrocketing and the media glowingly promoted every new drug as a 'breakthrough' in cancer.
I kept all my notes in my filing cabinet at work. I had no idea what I would ever do with them. I just knew that I had to get to the bottom of it, for myself. Meanwhile, the public's interest in laetrile refused to go away.
A lot of people were going across the border to Mexican clinics to get the stuff and my secretary's phone was ringing off the hook with people wanting to know what Sloan-Kettering thought of its value. I was once again told to give out the news that the studies had all been negative. At home, I called my family together for a meeting. With their support, I decided I couldn't lie on behalf of the Hospital. In November of 1977, I stood up at a press conference and blew the whistle on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's suppression of positive results with amygdalin. It felt like jumping off the highest diving board, but I had no doubt I was doing the right thing.
I was fired the next day for 'failing to carry out his most basic responsibilities' as the Hospital described it to the New York Times. In other words, failing to lie to the American people.
When I tried to pick up my things in my office, I found my files had been padlocked and two armed Hospital guards escorted me from the premises. Luckily for all of us, I have a very smart wife who all along had been making copies of my research notes and had put a complete extra set of files in a safe place. Those notes turned into my first book, The Cancer Industry, which is still in print (in an updated version) and available in bookstores.
That dramatic day, when I stood up in front of the packed press conference and told the truth, was the beginning of a journey I never could have predicted. I was launched on a mission that I'm still on today - helping cancer patients find the truth about the best cancer treatments. Well, we weren't able to buy a home until years later, the kids went to colleges on scholarships and loans, and my wife took on a demanding full-time job to help us get. But in retrospect, my experiences as an insider in 'the cancer industry' were among the best things ever to happen to me. My values were put to the test and I had to really examine what was important in my life. It is because of this difficult experience at Sloan-Kettering that I found a truly meaningful direction for my professional life, rather than just climbing Sloan-Kettering's career ladder and losing my soul in the process.' Ralph Moss, author Taken From: The story of Ralph Moss, which is really the story of Dr.
Kanematsu Sugiura, is just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous have been rewarded for their discoveries with jail, being driven out of the country, loss of license, harassment, and many other things. This war is not for the weak at heart. Ewan Cameron, M.D. And Linus Pauling, PhD - Vitamin C Experiment Linus Pauling is one of the few people in history who has won two Nobel Prizes and is the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes. He lived well into his 90s.
Here is a quote from an interview with him: 'I became interested in vitamin C and cancer in 1971 and began working with Ewan Cameron, M.B., Ch.B., chief surgeon at Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland. Cameron gave 10 grams of vitamin C a day to patients with untreatable, terminal cancer. These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but instead just gave conventional treatments.
Cameron's terminal cancer patients lived far longer compared to the ones who didn't get 10 grams a day of vitamin C. The other patients lived an average of six months after they were pronounced terminal, while Cameron's patients lived an average of about six years. More recently I've been collaborating with Hoffer, a physician in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Hoffer has treated 300 cancer patients and has recommended to all of them essentially the same treatment [as Cameron]. But about a quarter or a third of the patients didn't follow the treatment for one reason or another: The family doctor might have said that those high doses of vitamins would kill them, or the patient might have had a stomach upset and not wanted to continue taking the vitamins. The terminal cancer patients who didn't follow Hoffer's regimen had a survival time of only about six months.
But the ones who followed Hoffer's therapy have done even better than Cameron's patients. On the average they lived about 12 years after being pronounced terminal with untreatable cancer. Hoffer's regimen includes 12 grams of vitamin C per day, about the same as Cameron's. But it also includes significant amounts of other nutrients: • 800 units of vitamin E • 1,000 or 2,000 mg of niacin • large amounts of the other B vitamins and vitamin A in the form of beta carotene Apparently the other vitamins cooperate with the vitamin C to give even greater control over cancer.' ( Warning: Do not even think about going on a high dose Vitamin C treatment program unless you are working with someone with extensive experience in the treatment. Very high doses of Vitamin C can kill the kidneys.
If you use more than 12 grams of Vitamin C a day you should be working with a health professional.) Actually, there were multiple experiments done by Cameron and Pauling. Their treatment protocol was very simple: • Pick cancer patients who were diagnosed as terminal • Who had never had chemotherapy or radiation (there were exceptions) • Give them 10 grams (or more) of liquid Vitamin C every day (instead of chemotherapy) • For the rest of their lives • Then measure how long they live ( Note: Today patients generally use crystal ascorbate Vitamin C - except at clinics.
Do not too much potassium ascorbate without doctor supervision.) It's a pretty simple protocol. A high school student could easily follow their protocol. The results of their experiments were also very simple, the patients who took Vitamin C lived several times longer than patients who took orthodox treatments with chemotherapy and radiation. Some of their patients (remember all of their patients were considered terminal) went into complete remission, just using Vitamin C.
Their studies were designed to compare a Vitamin C treatment protocol, without chemotherapy and radiation, to a typical orthodox protocol using chemotherapy and radiation. Note that they did not use a tricky statistic, such as determining what percentage of the patients lived for one year, but rather they measured how long each patient lived. Their experiments proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vitamin C is a superior treatment for terminal patients versus orthodox therapy. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but if it is a superior treatment for terminal patients, then it is a superior treatment, instead of orthodox treatments, for the vast majority of cancer patients. Orthodox treatments are extremely painful, destroy a person's immune system, destroy their vital organs, and have a whole slew of other painful and dangerous side-effects. Vitamin C is an antioxidant that: • is completely painless • builds the immune system • adds quality time and quantity time to the life of terminal cancer patients It is now thought that when Vitamin C comes into contact with a cancer cell, hydrogen peroxide is created and that it is the hydrogen peroxide which kills the cancer cell. It is beyond the scope of this article to dive any deeper into the theory of using Vitamin C on cancer, but rest assured there is far more to this issue.
So you might wonder, since these studies were done many years ago, why do doctors today use toxic chemotherapy instead of Vitamin C, and the other vitamins of Hoffer? Big Pharma's Reaction To Cameron and Pauling Well, it turns out that (the pharmaceutical industry) was not happy with Linus Pauling and Dr. They were embarrassed by a two time Nobel Prize winner. It was time for damage control.
There was a smear campaign to discredit Dr. Pauling that continues to this day. The reason for the campaign, no doubt, was that the patients who took Vitamin C did not take chemotherapy. Thus, Big Pharma did not stand to profit from the extended lives of these patients. In fact, Big Pharma did not stand to profit from these patients at all. Now you know why Big Pharma has been attacking Vitamin C and Linus Pauling for many years. If cancer patients took 10 or 12 grams of Vitamin C a day, instead of chemotherapy, they would live longer and have far less pain.
I will translate that into something a businessman can understand: less 'earnings per share' for Big Pharma. ( Note: Before you use this protocol, you should be aware that there are far, far better cancer treatments today than the Pauling protocol.) The truth about what Cameron and Pauling had discovered had to be crushed. But since the studies were already published, and because Pauling was already world-famous, what was Big Pharma going to do?
The answer was to conduct bogus studies which came to different conclusions. But how can a scientific study follow the same treatment protocol and come to a different conclusion? However, what can be done is to refuse to follow the same protocol and use very fancy statistical tricks.
That is exactly what happened. But who would do such a bogus study, the treatment protocol was so simple a high school student could have followed it? You track down a doctor known to hate alternative medicine, one Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic. In response to the success of the Cameron/Pauling studies, the NIH funded a totally bogus 'study' at the Mayo Clinic on Vitamin C that did not even remotely follow the same patient selection protocol or the same treatment protocol. Of course since they made no attempt to replicate the Cameron and Pauling study, they did not get the same results.
Was the protocol too complicated for them to follow? When Cameron and Pauling complained that the study was so overtly and grossly bogus (this ridiculous study was actually published in a major medical journal - the New England Journal of Medicine), a second bogus 'study' was commissioned by the same NIH. You might call this: 'a bogus study replacement technique' for Big Pharma and corrupt scientists. Needless to say, the Mayo Clinic again refused to follow the simple treatment protocol and again they did not obtain the same results. There was even a third study, and guess what, again they did not follow the same treatment protocol and did not get the same results (Note: technically this third study was done by a different group, but this group was affiliated with the Mayo Clinic). Do you see a pattern here?
The fact of the matter is, the doctors at the Mayo Clinic knew the Cameron/Pauling protocol worked and they knew that if they followed their protocols they would have come to the same results. So they never did follow their protocols and obviously never did replicate their results. The most educational thing about their studies was the incredible statistical tricks they used to avoid the truth. Not only did Hoffer follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols, but a Japanese study also replicated their selection and treatment protocols and also replicated their results! Four totally independent studies (two by Cameron) used the same treatment protocol and got the same results. Three bogus studies at Mayo Clinic did not use the same treatment protocol and did not get the same results. The Mayo Clinic studies were done specifically to discredit the work of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.
Linus Pauling was getting people to believe there was 'scientific evidence' for Vitamin C, and he had to be stopped. It is totally unacceptable (from the viewpoint of Big Pharma) for our corrupt government to allow any scientific evidence for alternative treatments of cancer. Because there was scientific evidence for Vitamin C, and because they could not shut-up a two-time Nobel Prize winner, there had to be bogus studies designed to divert people's attention from the valid studies. Once the bogus studies were finished, the media could then take over the suppression of truth and immediately start blacklisting the valid studies. A Little Logic Which of these seven studies do all government agencies, quackwatch, the BC Cancer Agency, American Cancer Society, ad nauseum, depend on to justify the use of chemotherapy instead of mega doses of Vitamin C?
They quote the three Mayo Clinic studies and complain that Pauling and Cameron did not know what they were doing. In other words, the Mayo Clinic refused to follow the simple protocol, and it was Cameron and Pauling's fault! Did you follow all of that? Let me summarize it this way: • Group A (Cameron and Pauling) found that Vitamin C extended the lives of terminal cancer patients several-fold. • Group B (Hoffer and the Japanese), using the same protocol as Group A, confirmed their findings. • Group C (the Mayo Clinic), which said they were going to test the validity of the Group A study, did not use the same selection protocol or treatment protocol as Group A, and obviously did not replicate their results. Group A complained that Group C made absolutely no attempt to use the same treatment protocol as Group A.
Thus, Group C did a second study, and again did not follow Group A's protocols, and again did not replicate their results. This happened a third time. Now you know what is going on in medicine.
The treatment protocol is irrelevant to scientists who defend, they are only interested in making sure Vitamin C doesn't look good because Vitamin C is not profitable to Big Pharma. Quackwatch You might be interested to know exactly what,, etc. Complained about in the Cameron/Pauling study. They complained it was not a 'double blind' study. Now let's think about this for a moment.
Suppose two groups are selected for a study and the patients are not told which group they are in. The first group is secretly given Vitamin C in an IV, which builds their immune system, provide zero pain, and the patients feel fine. The second group is secretly given chemotherapy in an IV, which destroys their immune-system, destroys their vital organs, makes them feel sick, and causes enormous pain. Do you think the patients could figure out which group they were in?
Do you think you could do a 'double blind' study with Vitamin C versus chemotherapy? Don't be ridiculous. Doing a double-blind study on Vitamin C versus chemotherapy would be like doing a double blind study on battery acid versus chocolate cake. Within a matter of days each group would know what kind of treatment they were on. But it gets deeper than that. Let me quote from quackwatch, a defender of orthodox medicine and one of the major servants of Big Pharma (and major persecutor of alternative medicine). See if you can figure out what tricks of logic they are using before you read my comments about their statement: 'The Pauling/Cameron study was not a clinical trial in which patients were compared to carefully matched patients chosen at random and followed using a standardized [selection] protocol.
Instead, Pauling and Cameron attempted to reconstruct what happened to the control group by examining their medical records. Most cancer specialists and journal editors are extremely reluctant to accept [medical records] for evaluating the validity of contemporary cancer therapy, primarily because bias may occur in selecting controls.' First of all, it is a blatant lie that medical records are not acceptable in medical research, they are frequently used.
Second, there was nothing unethical about using a single group. The death rate using chemotherapy and radiation is well known (though they always use statistical tricks to make orthodox treatments look better than they really are) and these patients were going to die in any case, it was only a matter of when and that could be easily calculated. Furthermore, by not taking chemotherapy, the patients would be in much less pain even if they did not live as long. There are many cancer patients who would rather have a less painful treatment plan, even if they don't live as long.
In fact many cancer patients drop out of chemotherapy because they lose interest in a treatment plan that makes them so sick and causes them so much pain and misery. But to go a little deeper, imagine that two cars collide in an intersection, a red car and a green car.
The red car ran a 'red light' several seconds after the light had turned red and was speeding as it entered the intersection. The green car, which did not enter the intersection until after the light turned green, had one tire that was low in air pressure. Imagine the judge saying that the green car was at fault because the air pressure in one of its tires was low. Imagine the judge ignoring the fact that the red car ran a red light and was speeding! Using Barrett's logic, the green car was at fault. What 's (the M.D.
Owner of quackwatch) site was saying was that there was no placebo control group. In other words, when they picked the control group, they used medical records rather than a placebo control group. The key question is this: 'if Cameron and Pauling had used a placebo group, instead of medical records, would the psychological effect of taking a placebo have resulted in the placebo control group living several times longer than they did?'
Barrett must that thought the answer to that question was 'yes.' As already mentioned, such a study would be impossible when comparing Vitamin C to chemotherapy, which is what Cameron and Pauling were comparing. But there is another problem.
If a placebo group were required, what two groups would you use? It could not be Vitamin C versus chemotherapy, because one group must be given nothing (i.e. Nanny Mania 2 Free Download No Time Limit.
But if you compare the placebo group to the Vitamin C group (which actually would have been acceptable if that is what you were studying), you still have to ultimately compare the Vitamin C group to the chemotherapy group by using medical records. Thus, you cannot get around using medical records if you want to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy. A 'double-blind' study is supposed to avoid any psychological effect.
What psychological effect should a study be concerned about using a group of dead people? Should the statistics of dead people have been avoided due to the psychological effect on people who died several years earlier? Is it possible that in four different studies, done in three different countries (Scotland, Canada and Japan), that a psychological factor caused a several-fold increase in survival time? If so, why didn't both groups in the Mayo Clinic studies survive several times longer than expected, because both groups thought they were getting Vitamin C? Even if the psychological theory was true, I would still give people Vitamin C, if their psychological state of mind caused them to live several times longer! If fact, Barrett's argument is total nonsense.
The purpose of the study was to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy, and that is impossible to do using a double blind study. The real reason the two groups of studies yielded different results was the treatment protocol. Here is the important thing, quackwatch didn't even mention that there were any differences in the treatment protocols between Pauling and Moertel (i.e. They didn't mention that the red car had run a red light or that it was speeding). Their focus was on the selection protocol (i.e. The air pressure in the tires of the two cars).
Do you see how quackwatch twisted the facts and used sensationalism to divert your attention from the most important issues. It is as if Dr. Cameron did not know how to determine which hospital the patients were at, what kind of cancer they had, which stage of cancer the patients were at, and which doctors treated which patients. Let me re-quote from above: 'These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but instead just gave conventional treatments.' To quackwatch, this wasn't good enough because it didn't come to the correct answer - use prescription drugs. The vastly different treatment protocol used by the Mayo Clinic is more 'scientific' because it leads you to take prescription drugs. Get used to this type of propaganda, you will see it all the time.
They love to divert your attention with irrelevant issues. A normal, open-minded researcher, if they studied the Pauling/Cameron studies and the three Mayo Clinic studies, would quickly look at the selection protocol and see nothing significant to complain about the Pauling study. They would then focus their attention on the treatment protocol. Since the two groups of studies had vastly different results, it would be absolutely obvious to the legitimate researchers that something significant was different about their studies. By far the thing that was most significant was the treatment protocols. Barrett also has a page on Linus Pauling himself. Writing About Writing Wordle Ebook Readers. The title to the quackwatch page on Linus Pauling is titled: '.'
Ohhhh, it sounds like Linus Pauling joined the 'Dark Side' before he died. The article starts: 'Linus Pauling, Ph.D., was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962.
His recent death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace [sic], however, was anything but laudable.' Yes, I agree Pauling's impact on Big Pharma was not laudable.
He was a pain in their neck. He had integrity and was looking to help cancer patients, not Big Pharma profits. You should realize that Vitamin C, by itself, is not a cure for cancer, but if it can extend the life of terminal cancer patients by 5 1/2 years or even 1 year (depending on how advanced they were when treatment began), that gives them plenty of time to use the natural treatments that do cure cancer. Later, I will talk about the 'top 100' most effective alternative treatments for cancer. Where does Vitamin C therapy fit in this list? It is not on the list.
Not even close. It's cure rate is far too low. It is used in alternative medicine largely to extend the life of the patient so far more effective treatments have more time to work. However, Vitamin C is used in some medical clinics with excellent success. But for those treating themselves at home, Vitamin C is too dangerous at very high levels.
Two excellent books on the subject of Vitamin C and cancer are: • ', by Ewan Cameron, M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.S. And Linus Pauling, PhD • ', by H. Newbold, M.D.
The Bogus Mayo Clinic Studies on Laetrile Largely the same people at the Mayo clinic also did two bogus studies on laetrile therapy to discredit the tens of thousands of testimonials of people cured by laetrile therapy (). The public was beginning to believe that laetrile actually worked. Time for damage control.
Guess what, the Mayo Clinic did not follow standard American protocol and dosages. For example, if they had followed the standard laetrile diet, which is virtually the same thing as a 'raw food' diet, the diet alone would have significantly extended the lives of the patients. But in this case it was the watered-down and phony 'laetrile' the NIH provided to the Mayo Clinic that was perhaps the most bogus part of these studies. The NIH, which funded the bogus studies, did not allow an alternative treatment vendor to supply the laetrile for at least one of the studies, even though the vendor offered to supply the laetrile for free. Introduction This is the longest chapter in this book, and it is the most important. Do not rush through it.
First, I am going to ask three questions. Write down your answers to these questions on a piece of paper before reading any further: • When you hear that someone has 'gone into remission,' what goes through your mind?
• Because chemotherapy causes so much pain and suffering, what statistic would justify its use? • What does 'cure rate' mean?' Write your answers on a piece of paper, then read this chapter, then see how accurate your answers were.
Options A newly diagnosed cancer patient has several options to deal with their cancer: Treatment Options For Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patient • Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation (i.e. Orthodox treatments), as prescribed by their doctor (this may include orthodox treatments other than surgery, chemotherapy and radiation). • Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but drop out of the treatment program prematurely. • Refuse all treatments (i.e. Have zero surgery, zero chemotherapy, zero radiation, zero alternative treatments, etc.) • Have alternative treatments after extensive orthodox treatments and after doctors have given up all hope for the treatment of this patient. • Have alternative treatments after some orthodox treatments, but the patient dropped out of the orthodox treatment program prematurely. • Have alternative treatments instead of orthodox treatments (i.e.
They refused orthodox treatments). Note that in the last three items, which deal with alternative treatments, there are over 400 different alternative cancer treatments, thus there are really over 400 options available to a newly diagnosed cancer patient. The key question to be dealt with is this: how do we determine which treatment plan is 'best?'