Can We Cure the American Cancer Society?

“People that donate to the American Cancer Society are basically funding pharmaceutical/chemical eugenics. According to Wiki, the rate of cancer in Americans has more than doubled the population growth since its founding.” – John Bravo Independent Journalist Top the News
In 1984,The American Cancer Society said; “1. Avoid obesity. 2. Cut down total fat intake to 30% of total calories. 3. Eat more high fiber foods. 4. Eat foods rich in vitamins A and C. 5. Include cruciferous vegetables in the diet, greens, etc. 6. Be moderate in the consumption of alcohol. 7. Moderate consumption of salt-cured, smoked and nitrite cured foods.”
The History of the American Cancer Society is somewhat in conflict with that statement. In 1913, a group of doctors met at the Harvard Club and started the American Society for the Control of Cancer located at Memorial Hospital. “Radium treatments” for cancer were their speciality. This “society” was funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and had contributions from J.P. Morgan & the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation. They changed their original proclamation of “free radium treatments” when the donor changed their mind and they subsequently gave “treatments” for $18,000, accounting for their largest single source of income in 1924. The “donor” Douglas also gave himself radium treatments. In 1913, he died of aplastic anemia. Medical historians believe Marie Curie may have also been a victim of radium “treatments”. By 1922, more than one hundred radiologists had died from X ray induced cancer. Hubert Humphrey was treated by X ray for cancer of the bladder. In 1976. His physician Dr. Dabney Jarman declared him cured in a New York Times article. Chemo was also administered to Humphrey and he eventually refused that treatment; calling chemo “bottled death”.
The chairman of the American Cancer Society, Clarence D. Little, named in 1929 by the Rockefellers, established a laboratory at a home on Mt. Desert Island. Little was also president of the American Birth Control League, and associated with the Euthanasia Society, and the Eugenics Society. Rockefeller has Ties to Sloan Kettering. A prominent director of Sloan Kettering was Dorothy Peabody Davison. She married F. Trubee Davison, son of Henry Pomeroy Davison, a Rockefeller relative and right-hand man for J. P. Morgan. She met with others at the infamous Jekyl Island Conference, which produced the Federal Reserve Act in November of 1910.
In 1944, the American Society for the Control of Cancer became the American Cancer Society; with Albert Lasker and Elmer Bobst at the helm. Lasker’s advertising persuaded women to smoke in public. Bette Davis also did her part. Ironically, Lasker was striken with the disease. His operation for intestinal cancer in 1950 did no good. He died in 1952. In 1976 at least eighteen members of the American Cancer Society’s Board were executive officers of banks. ACS spent $114 million that year and had assets of $181 million. As of August 31, 1976, 42% of ACS cash and investments, some $75 million, was in affiliated banks. The 1975 budget of ACS reported the amount allocated for research was less than the salaries of its 2,900 employees. Some believe the American Cancer Society also controls the National Cancer Institute, a government agency. ACS admitted that 70% of its 1976 research budget went to “individuals or institutions” connected to their organization.
Pat McGrady, a science editor of ACS, told writer Peter Chowka,
“Medicine has become venal, second only to the law. The ACS slogan, control cancer with a checkup and a check . . . it’s phony, because we are not controlling cancer. That slogan is the extent of the ACS scientific, medical and clinical savvy. Nobody in the science and medical departments there is capable of doing real science. They are wonderful professionals who know how to raise money. They don’t know how to prevent cancer or cure patients; instead, they close the door to innovative ideas. ACS money goes to scientists who put on the best show to get grants or who have friends on the grant-giving panels.”
A variety of others have come forward. Dr. Hardin James addressed the ACS Panel in 1969 and stated that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. “For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment live an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years. I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defense mechanism. The body has a natural type of defense against every type of cancer.” The failure of modern medicine is profitable; there is no money in the truth. In the instance of cancer, instead of addressing the causes of cancer – such as toxins and a weakened immune system – we have slash, burn or poison away the tumors and cancer cell remediations.
Preventative and T- Cell Therapy deserves more attention.

The following is reprinted from :

http://theblessedseed.blogspot.com/2010/08/treating-cancer-nature-vs-modern.html

* The development of cancer indicates that our natural first line of defense, our immune system, has been defeated and that the presence of either toxins and pathogens, or some imbalance in our bodies have led to the development of cancer and enabled it to gain an upper hand.

* Cancer cannot develop without an impaired liver, as alternative cancer pioneer Max Gerson discovered.

* It is very difficult for cancer to survive in an alkaline environment.

* It is likewise very difficult for cancer to survive in a highly oxygenated environment.

* Detoxing and cleansing our colons and liver helps restore balance, prepares our bodies to better be able utilize natural immune boosters and cancer fighters and paves the way to rebuilding our livers and immune systems.

* Cancer cells are diseased, impaired and/or beset by pathogens and have lost the ability to to be die naturally via normal programmed cell death and be replaced by healthy cells. These cancerous cells simply become abnormal and outlive the other cells in their normal cell life/replacement cycle and end up crowding out a territory over time.

The Promise of T -Cell Immune Therapy is gaining ground. In “A Commotion in the Blood,” published in 1997, Stephen S. Hall discusses cancer patients in remission; first with extracts of streptococcal abscesses and later with more pure cultures of the microbes by Coley. Supposedly, his results could not be reliably reproduced and were not endorsed by colleagues; notably by Ewing, a radiation proponent. Coley’s work was financially supported by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. who also donated to Ewing’s research. Both Coley and Ewing claimed successes. Ultimately, Rockefeller chose Ewing as his scientific adviser. What was Rockefeller thinking? Rockefeller’s support led to the creation of what is now the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the biggest institutions studying and treating malignancies via radiation and chemotherapy. Immunology as cancer therapty for the most part was discredited and discarded.
In 1987, researchers in France discovered a protein. Named cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, or CTLA-4; it protrudes from the T-cell’s surface. A Bristol-Myers Squibb scientist, using results from his lab, asserted that CTLA-4 increased T-cell and immune system activity. Contradictory results were obtained by Allison and Jeffrey Bluestone, an immunologist. They believed that CTLA-4 actually acted as a brake on the T-cells, and Allison thought that it might be keeping the immune system from attacking tumors. Allison also learned that Bristol-Myers Squibb had filed for a patent, which stated CTLA-4 stimulated T-cell growth. “If that was the case, you would never, ever think about injecting an antibody that blocked CTLA-4 into a cancer patient, because it would make things worse,” he said. “People were scared of putting that into a patient.” Allison persisted against this opinion, telling the industry that Bristol-Myers Squibb was wrong and he received investment from Medarex. Among its first trials on humans, in 2001, Medarex included patients with malignant melanoma, because it was one of the few cancers that had occasionally responded to immune-based treatments like interferon or interleukin-2. In 2004, Bristol-Myers Squibb joined the partnership. Interesting. A subsequent trial showed scant impact after twelve weeks. Many of the tumors got bigger, and in some patients new lesions appeared. Pfizer was also testing an antibody to CTLA-4, and concluded that it was a failure after results from Squib’s clinical trials were inconclusive.
Enter Rosenberg, who pioneered “adoptive cell transfer,” T-cells are taken from a patient’s tumor and given immune stimulants such as interleukin-2, causing replication. This mixture is then injected. Results of three trials on patients with melanoma who underwent adoptive cell transfer at the National Cancer Institute are more than encouraging. Nine of twenty-five patients have been in complete remission for more than five years. Across all three trials, five patients who had received earlier, unsuccessful treatment with the antibody to CTLA-4 are in remission.
The mutation of migrating cancer cells can sometimes negate typical T Cell Therapy. In another lab, a series of mice were injected with melanoma. Some served as controls, and black masses an inch or more grew on their flanks. Others had received the antibody to CTLA-4, or to PD-1, or a combination. “The most dramatic regression is seen with the combination,” Allison said, pointing to the flanks of mice where the tumors had shrunk to small black dots. Clinical trials in patients have begun with combining one antibody against CTLA-4 and another against PD-1, in order to remove the brakes on the T-cell.
Recently the antibody to CTLA-4, marketed under the name Yervoy, was approved by the FDA to treat melanoma. It was a vindication for immune therapy, and an important step in the treatment of cancer, which utilizes mutations; making it a most protean disease.
A La Canada, Ca. woman was dying from cancer, Connie Tucker, 57. Her cancer failed to go into remission, and after chemo failed she got into a clinical trial for Merck 3475, which theoretically allows her T-Cells to attack cancer. Connie says her tumors started shrinking immediately and have continued to do so, and she is considered a success.
It is well documented that refined sugar is a favorite fuel for cancer. The consumption of sugar has increased dramatically over the last half century. It is even added to tobacco in high concentrations in Britain, which has a high incidence of lung cancer. Our diets and environmental effects as the cause of cancer will never be ignored, except by those who profit from the disease.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New World Order, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s