Home Buy now! Contact Us Site Map Payments

Blog / Nov 30, 2021
Feb 04/09
Disease in a Bottle
Jan 30/09
The Art of Staying Young
Nov 18/08
Our Attitudes and Aging
Nov 03/08
May 27/08
Large intestine cleansing
Oct 29/07
Look after your health as carefully and tenderly as you look after your car.
Oct 22/07
We are what we eat
Oct 18/07
Less flour - more power
Oct 09/07
The truth about meat – the time bomb
Oct 04/07
Oct 01/07
Disease in a Bottle
Sep 25/07
The Danger of Refined Foods
May 16/07
Mar 26/07
Factors Causing Damage to our Health
All news

Effective non-toxic treatments for cancer...

By Rev. Barbara Clearbridge

Back to Table Of Contents


At last we come to the question with which we began: Why don’t our doctors either know about or espouse “alternative” kinds of cancer treatment? Surely they know about at least some of the promising techniques and research, and the political monkeyshines.

They Don’t Know. Any doctor can call him or herself a specialist in any branch of medicine without going through a residency or taking any specialty training in that field. Some states do not require their physicians to attend annual continuing education classes in order to retain their licenses. This means that physicians may be unaware of new developments in cancer treatment. It may also mean that they are unaware that treatments formerly acceptable or considered effective, are now known to be ineffective or even harmful.

Most — but not all — medical specialties have voluntary “Board certification” programs. This means that doctors go through specialized training and can then say they are Board certified in that specialty. Some Boards have annual contnuing education requirements in order to retain certification (called “re-certification”), and some do not.

"Doctors are not trained in wellness but in DISEASE…. And what we get is Rambo, M.D." 112

Career Pressures. “The modern career scientist’s business is one in which success is measured by the number of papers published. Maximizing this number leads to greater prestige, more grant funds, larger laboratories, and positions on decision-making committees. Unfortunately, it is much easier to get a paper published if it does not challenge the present orthodoxy.”113

Human Nature and Change.

“…the path of science is characterized by periods of revolution during which the dogmatic system of beliefs derived from the past is replaced by a new paradigm – a new view of how things work. This change is brought about by the gradually increasing failure of the established paradigm to deliver on its promises.... As in all revolutions, the change in ideas is always bitterly opposed by the practitioners of the established paradigm.”114

They Don’t Like You. This one is scary. Victor and Ruth Sidel, authors of A Healthy State, show that when a physician or health care worker comes in contact with a person whose cultural beliefs are different from his or her own, the result is not only what the patient feels as a cool, uncaring encounter, but also may be biases in diagnosis and treatment.115 Supporting these findings is a study done by researchers from the University of Minnesota Medical School and St. Paul- Ramsey Medical Center. When they asked residents and staff physicians about patient characteristics they disliked, the ones that provoked mostly negative responses included “marital, family problems,” “disheveled, unkempt,” “markedly overweight,” “markedly underweight,” “tearful,” “adolescence,” “low pain tolerance,” and “non-English speaking.” These characteristics did not elicit sympathy as they might in the general population; negativity is what they received.116

The Money Is Too Good. This idea has been stated in various contexts in other sections of this report. Here is one other view of the situation:

“[pancreatic enzymes] were first proven as a cancer cure by John Beard, M.D., a few years before Madame Curie started the use of x-radiation as a therapy. Once the hospitals invested millions of dollars in expensive equipment, Beard’s inexpensive cure had to be abandoned to make the hospitals profitable.”117

Lack of Liability.

“Although statistics put the percentage of incompetent and dangerous practitioners at anywhere between 5% and 15% of the physician population, disciplinary actions [by state medical boards] occur at a rate of…1.4%.” 118

According to Inlander, Levin and Weiner, authors of Medicine On Trial, “Medical societies wield no direct power to keep a physician from practicing. All they can do is throw a doctor out of the society.”119 And when a medical  license is revoked, it is not final – it can be reinstated at any time.

Are you thinking that the threat of malpractice suits keeps doctors in line? According to the above authors, it takes an average of 2½ years before a malpractice case is resolved, during which time THE DOCTOR CONTINUES TO PRACTICE.

You can ask your state licensing Board if a doctor is now, or ever has been, involved in a malpractice suit or disciplinary action, but they do not have to tell you. They will tell you only if they — the licensing or quality assurance Board — has investigated or disciplined the doctor. (See Resources for Washington State information)

Inlander, President of the People’s Medical Society, says:

“Isn’t it amazing that, thanks to the Human Genome Project, consumers soon will know more about their doctors’ genetic shortfalls than about their competence to practice medicine? It’s about time that trade groups like the American Hospital and American Medical associations recognize that Americans have the right to know the disciplinary actions taken and medical malpractice judgments made against the practitioners we license.”120

ACS: American Cancer Society      NCI: National Cancer Institute
FDA: U.S. Food & Drug Administration 

Go To Next Page

Back to Table Of Contents

November, 30 
Copyright © Healthy Life Press Inc. 2000 -2020. All rights reserved.