Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Pat Shannan Archive

.American Free Press
.Vol IX .#38-39 Sept. 21-28,


AMERICAN FREE PRESS * September 21 & 28, 2009 * Issue 38-39

Mainstream Medicine's Lethal `Cure' to Cancer

By Pat Shannan


.Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well, for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
But what are cancer professionals saying about the effectiveness of chemotherapy?
We will begin with two-time Nobel Prize winning Dr. Linus Pauling (1901-1994). He was a prime promoter of Vitamin C in the diet as well as the world’s most outspoken advocate of massive doses ofVitamin C to prevent everything from colds to cancer. [See the ad on page B-8.—Ed.] Dr. Pauling, a promoter of natural remedies other than drugs, said: “Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them”
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., former director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center, admitted: “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."
Dr. Samuel Epstein put into the Congressional Record, no less, on Sept. 9, 1987, that chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times.
Dr. Nixon, Ph.D., former president of the American Chemical Society, said, “[A]s 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.”
Dr. Martin Shapiro of the UCLA Medical Center “Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective.”
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says: “Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and may shorten life — no one can tell from the available data.”
Thomas Dao, M.D., in The New England Journal of Medicine, March 1975, said, “Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years.”
In 1991, Albert Braverman, M.D., authored an article entitled “Medical Oncology in the 1990s.” It was published in The Lancet. He said, “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.”
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with hopefulness undaunted by almost invariable failure.
Others in the know have called it “a scientific wasteland” and “an unproven procedure.” So then we want to ask, “How can that be true of the “preferred” cancer treatment in the U.S.?”
Answer: For the love of money.
Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy’s effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn’t seem to work.
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 tumor and extending the life of a patient.”
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. Sixty-four (81%) said they would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin—one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were using (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110 million 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.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their “haz-mat” suits and all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human veins and expected to cure us of disease?
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, wrote this warning to professor Michael Gearin-Tosh about advising a close friend to avoid chemotherapy: “If your friend touches chemotherapy, he’s a goner.”


Pat Shannon is a contributing editor to American Free Press newspaper. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan’s experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1980s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each.



(Issue #38-39, September 21-28, 2009, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)

Short URL for this article:


Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.