[cytpro_player name=”The History of Chemotherapy”][/cytpro_player]
Welcome to the Truth about Cancer: A Global Quest. I'm your host, Ty Bollinger. Many of you may have seen The Quest for the Cures last year. We were able to travel across the United States interviewing doctors, scientists, researchers, and cancer patients to learn what they were doing to treat cancer. It is only because of your support that we have been able this year to travel across the globe and to do over 100 new interviews with top scientists, researchers, doctors and cancer patients that are preventing, treating, and beating cancer. What you just saw represents less than half of the total interviews that you will see over the next nine days. Well, I set out on a quest across the globe in search of the true cures to cancer.
You may ask why would I be so set on finding cancer's true preventions and treatments? Did you know that almost 50 percent of the people alive today will face cancer? Did you know that one in four males alive today will die from cancer? And one in five females will die from cancer? While these statistics give enough reason for many good people to search out the answers. They are not the central reason that triggered my journey across the globe in search for the true answers for cancer. Let me tell you why I had to embark on this journey. For me, everything began with an irreplaceable loss. It's an old wound beginning 20 years ago. But sometimes it still feels like it happened yesterday. I lost both my mother and father to cancer. Well, in all actuality, it was actually to cancer's false treatments. I also lost five other close family members to cancer and it's so-called treatments.
After my folks died, I was angry and paralyzed by grief. I couldn't see any good coming out of what happened to them and I felt like their lives were wasted. And Charlene, my wife, and our children were robbed of precious future memories. But it was in the moment that the first book I wrote about cancer’s treatments got into the hands of someone seeking the lifesaving information on cancer that everything changed. I then realized for the first time that my parent’s life and deaths actually mattered. Just last year everything that we learned culminated in The Quest for the Cures. Fast forward to The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest. I knew that this endeavor would take more energy, research, time and more tears than anything Charlene and I had ever done before. Again it was difficult to leave my precious wife and children. And at times I questioned whether it was worth this sacrifice to take this quest around the globe, but Charlene was the first one to tell me that I had to go. I truly owe this entire mission to my precious wife. She was my hope when I had given up.
She was my faith when I was barely holding on. She was a gift from heaven and she still is. Oh and a word about my children. A rule that I learned as a father, never leaves your kids out. Our eldest Briana is a diligent worker and adventurous. She loves her animals, the outdoors and ravishing her pocket knife skills. Bryce has this hysterical sense of humor, a high set of values, respects his elders and he loves sports like basketball. Then there’s Tabitha with her comical laughter, her gentle care for her little sister and her love for animals and dressing up like a princess. And finally our youngest, Charity, who loves nothing more than clinging to mommy and daddy and playing with her big sissy, Tabitha. Having these precious children and a wonderful wife has taught me that life is worth fighting for. So it was time for me to embark on this journey. Venturing into the areas of the world with more equipment than we could handle, with a chance of getting stopped by authorities, which actually happened more than once, having equipment failure or challenges to health or safety for the team and myself.
But the bigger personal challenge for me was knowing that each day I would be revisiting the loss of my mother and father. And the things that I could’ve done if I had known about them earlier that would have saved their lives. And yet, it is this pain that pushes me further. Dad’s my hero. He would be proud of what we are doing. Of that I’m sure. You are about to learn the best treatments and preventions to cancer, protocols that won’t harm your body from the world leading doctors across the globe. You’ll see and experience things that you wouldn’t have even believed if you had not watched each of these nine episodes and seen the science and documented evidence to support the countless people that are living witnesses that there are true answers to the dreaded disease of cancer.
Get ready for one of the most transformational experiences of your life as we journey into a nine-day quest to find the true answers for cancer. This is The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest. We traveled the entire globe to gather this lifesaving information so that we can empower you with knowledge. Please, tell your friends and family to tune in for the next nine days. This information is of vital importance. Dr. Ivars Kalvins, one of the 2015 finalists for the European Medicine Award, explains why. Dr. Ivars Kalvins: It is calculated that the new generation, the generation of today… from this generation… each second man and each third woman will have this illness… cancer.
Ty: One in two men and one in three women that are alive today are gonna face cancer. That's why we, at The Truth about Cancer, are so passionate about our mission to educate, expose, and eradicate cancer once and for all. In order for us to educate, we felt that it was vitally important that we obtain the most cutting-edge information about cancer preventions and treatments and that's why we traveled across the globe. We obtained interviews with over 100 new experts representing over 20 different countries. A big portion of educating people about the truth is exposing the lies. And that's why, specifically in this Episode One, we're going to be exposing the lies about the history of modern medicine and the history of cancer treatments. So after the next nine days of educating you about the truth and exposing the lies, together, we will be one step closer to eradicating cancer once and for all.
But let me ask you a question. Can someone educate someone else about something that they know nothing about? Dr. Jonathan Wright: They gave us a whole hour on our nutritionals. A whole hour. Ty: A whole hour. Dr. Jonathan Wright: In four years of medical school. Ty: Wow. Dr. Jonathan Wright: And they told us, “There is vitamin A, and B1, and B2, and C, and D, and they are in alphabetical order and you can look them up.” And then they told us some really basic facts.
We got a whole hour. Ty: So how much training did you receive on nutrition when you were in medical school? Because I know here in the States, it's almost none. Dr. Gaston Cornu-Labat: Yes, not much. Ty: Not much? Even in Argentina? Dr. Gaston Cornu-Labat: It was close to—very little. Ty: Close to none? Dr. Gaston Cornu-Labat: Very little. Dr. Suzanne Kim: Even in medical school they don't teach you—they don't teach you anything about nutrition. Ty: It's so vitally important for us to understand this history if we were going to answer that question. Why is modern medicine so drug intensive? It's not because patent petrochemical medicine is superior. It's because the monopoly medicine which was created over a hundred years ago. The word doctor actually means teacher, so doctors should be educating their patients and teaching their patients. But unfortunately, the only thing that doctors are taught while they're in medical school is how to prescribe drugs. Dr. Jonathan Wright: We got hours and hours and hours on how to use basically patent medicines which, as you know, are what usually goes on the prescription pad.
It’s a molecule that can be patented, which means it's not found in nature, because you can't patent it if it's found in nature and that's what we get educated in. Dr. Irvin Sahni: Because they don't get paid to educate people. They get paid to write prescriptions. And you know, you can imagine the drug lobby made sure that's the case. Dr. Garry Gordon: A doctor is brainwashed when he gets out of medical school because the medical school has too much subsidization of the professors who are being paid by the drug company. So the professor never teaches any student in medical school, “Why don't you try Vitamin C?” They're going to tell them the latest drug. Dr. Joseph Mercola: That’s by design, specifically. Over a century ago, there were foundations, the Carnegie and the Rockefeller Foundations, who sort of engineered the curriculum through their grants and donations.
Ty: Are you wondering what Dr. Joseph Mercola meant when he mentioned that the Carnegie and the Rockefeller Foundations engineered medical school curriculum over a century ago? He was referring to the Flexner Report of 1910, which we covered in our last documentary. Just in case you missed that important piece of this foundation that we’re laying today, here's a brief recap. You see, if we're going to change where we're going, we need to know where we've been. And that is why history is so important. Because as the old saying goes, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” G. Edward Griffin: So I don't need to go any further. You can understand when the money is coming from a source, which has a vested interest in the outcome, now what's going to happen is the outcome is going to be what the donor wants it to be, generally.
So this is the problem. And that goes back even further in time to the turn of the last century when the Rockefeller Group and the Carnegie Group actually came together and they decided that they would “reform” medical education in America. Dr. Robert Scott Bell: At the time of the late 1800s, early 1900s, 20th century, medical schools taught a lot of different things. There were homeopathic medical schools. There were naturopathic schools, there were eclectic herbal-type medicine schools. And so it was all there. There was not one way. What happened was that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were interested in establishing the one way. How would they do that? Well, they would get ahold of the education system and create a medical monopoly by basically eliminating all competition to patent petrochemical medical education.
That's the Flexner Report of 1910, as it became known. Abraham and Simon Flexner were hired to do this. It was a preordained commissioned report. Dr. Darrell Wolfe: Not surprisingly the basis of the report was that it was far too easy to start a medical school and that most schools were not teaching sound medicine. Let me translate this for you. These natural health colleges were not pushing enough chemical drugs manufactured by who? Carnegie and Rockefeller. The AMA, who were evaluating the various medical colleges, made it their job to target and shut down the larger respected homeopathic colleges.
Carnegie and Rockefeller began to immediately shower hundreds of millions of dollars on these medical schools that were teaching drug-intensive medicine. G. Edward Griffin: By the way, when they donated the money, the donors would say, “Now we've given you a lot of money, and we know you're going to do the right thing with it. But would you object if we had someone from our staff appointed to your Board of Directors? Just to make sure—just to see how our money is being spent?” Well, that was really a condition of getting the money. So you know the university said, “That would be fine. Anybody that you would suggest would be, I'm sure, more than adequate.” So they began to load up the Boards of Directors of these teaching centers with people who literally were on the payroll of the donors. Once that was in place, the curriculum of the universities, the teaching centers, swung completely in the direction of pharmaceutical drugs and it has remained that way ever since.
Dr. Darrell Wolfe: Predictably those schools that had the financing, churned out the better doctors. Oh, wait a minute. Or should I say, the more recognized doctors? In return for the financing, the schools were required to continue teaching course material that was exclusively drug-oriented with no emphasis on natural medicine. By 1925, over 10,000 herbalists were out of business. By 1940, over 1,500 chiropractors would be prosecuted for practicing quackery. The 22 homeopathic medical schools that flourished in the 1900s dwindled down to just two by 1923. By 1950 all the schools teaching homeopathy were closed. In the end, if a physician did not graduate from a Flexner-approved medical school and receive an MD degree, then he or she could not find a job anywhere. This is why today MDs are so heavily biased towards synthetic drug therapy and know little about nutrition if anything. G. Edward Griffin: Now this whole medical field has been skewed in the direction of pharmaceutical drugs, which can be patented and produce great profits for the producers. Then the next step is that means that anything coming from nature is excluded, and that's where we think, some of us think, that most of the promise lies. In these very complex substances found in herbs and plants and trees and things like that, seeds.
Some of us feel that it was probably meant to be that way. You come out of all of this analysis and all of this history with the realization that the medical profession is really like a lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry and most of the doctors have no idea that that's the case. They don't understand this history. Ty: It's so vitally important for us to understand this history if we're going to answer that question, “Why is modern medicine so drug intensive?” It's not because patent petrochemical medicine is superior. It is because of a monopoly medicine, which was created over 100 years ago. Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: And the other aspect is also a monopoly on treatment. The only pharmaceutical, conventional medicine is the medicine that is officially approved and acclaimed.
And people who try to find other solutions have difficulties when it comes to insurance coverage and other problems. So maintaining a monopoly on treatment is also one of the ways to protect and grow this business. Dr. Jonathan Wright: And have you noticed that when a new drug comes out and they call it, “a blockbuster drug,” they're not talking about, “It cures cancer.” They're not talking about, “It's a blockbuster for health.” They're talking about how many bucks you can make and that's what it always is. It seems that the number one goal of a lot of healthcare is to make money. And if we happen to do some good with it, that's fine, but our number one goal is to make money. Dr. Matthias Rath: Very few know that the birth hour of the pharmaceutical industry is actually a deliberate decision by a handful of people on this side and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean to define disease as a marketplace and build what has now become the largest investment industry upon that simple thought.
So cancer is just one element of this unspeakable business of defining diseases as a marketplace. Everything else that you see today around the pharmaceutical industry— the tremendous profits, the inability to eliminate diseases, the propaganda war from that side that they are actually making progress in any disease—all of that comes from the fact that it's a business model, an investment industry, that thrives on the continuation of existing diseases and the launching of new diseases. Ty: Yes, modern medicine is a business. And just like any business, the goal is to grow this business and also to eliminate competition and to maintain the monopoly. Even in 1913, the American Medical Association developed an internal department that they called the Propaganda Department and its main goal was to eliminate quacks.
But what exactly is quackery? In the United States, our first President, George Washington, died as a result of bloodletting and that was an approved treatment of the day. Ignaz Semmelweis was called a quack because he suggested that doctors actually wash their hands before surgery. And physicians today that do not use chemotherapy, they're considered to be quacks. But very few people know the real history of chemotherapy and its origins. Dr. Sunil Pai: How we first discovered chemotherapy, the first chemotherapy agents in the early 1940s, was because in Italy when they dropped nitrogen mustard gas on one of these missions and they were doing the postmortem autopsy of the bodies, the lymphocytes of these patients dropped down.
And then some of these doctors got an idea. “Well guys, if someone has leukemia or lymphoma where these lymphocytes are producing too much, it was suppressed in these people that were dropped with mustard gas.” So the chemotherapy agent comes from the history of actually making— Ty: Mustard gas. Dr. Sunil Pai: You said it. Ty: As shocking as this may be, the first chemotherapy agents, and even some of the agents that are still used today, are derived from the mustard gases that were used to kill soldiers in the World Wars. This explains why many people, including myself, would never touch chemotherapy. It's just too darn toxic. But it's not just me. As you're about to learn, and we learned from the previous interview, 90 percent of oncologists won't do chemo either. Dr.
Sunil Pai: And there's a study came out that about 90 percent of physicians, particularly in oncology, would not prescribe the drug that they give to their patients to their wife or their child. Right? So what does that tell us? Dr. Steven Klayman: He's probably not going to do his treatment, why would you? Ty: In 1971 US President Nixon declared a War on Cancer, but are we really winning this war in light of the fact that 90 percent of oncologists won't even take their own treatment? Is the cancer industry any closer today than they were then in finding a cure? Why does this perpetual war on cancer continue? Dr.
Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: One of the reasons why this war continues is the money that is being made in this war. This refers to the treatments, so-called treatments that are being used in cancer, namely chemotherapy, and radiation. Chemotherapy uses the most powerful toxins known to humans and these toxins, of course, are being sold to us as substances that can kill cancer cells. But these substances also kill, annihilate, healthy cells in the body and damage its organs, which makes the recovery from cancer almost a miracle, impossible. And also the very substances that are being used to fight cancer are cancer-causing chemicals. So instead of eliminating cancer or curing cancer, we are inducing, generating new cancers. Ty: That's pretty interesting, isn't it? Maybe one of the reasons that 90 plus percent of oncologists won't do conventional treatments like chemotherapy is that they actually cause cancer. Let's listen to Dr.
Veronique Desaulniers, who actually cured her own mother and herself of breast cancer, talk about Tamoxifen, which is the most popular drug prescribed to treat breast cancer. Dr. Veronique Desaulniers: Tamoxifen is a drug that most women are put on when they have breast cancer, but they don't tell them that it is classified as a carcinogen by the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization. Does it make sense to give women a carcinogenic drug that will cause cancers in other parts of her body to “prevent” cancer? Ty: That's really shocking, isn't it? Tamoxifen, the number one drug prescribed to treat breast cancer, it actually causes cancer. What about other chemotherapy drugs? Is Tamoxifen alone? Dr. Ben Johnson: It's estimated that by 2020 more than half of all cancer in America will be medically-induced from drugs or radiation. So our medical establishment itself will soon become the leading cause of cancer in America. Dr. Rashid Buttar: It's not cancer that really hurts people. Statistically, 42 to 46 percent of patients will die – that have cancer – will die of cachexia, which is basically wasting of protein.
They basically lose all their lean body mass. So that leaves between 58 and 54 percent of patients that didn't die of cachexia. And the joke, which is only maybe half funny, is that the rest of them die from the treatment. In other words, really nobody dies from cancer. If you think about it when a patient gets immunosuppressed and they have cancer, what actually takes them? Liver failure, kidney failure, pneumonia, sepsis—but all these things are usually associated with also the person getting chemo and radiation.
Dr. James Forsythe: Then I went into practice in San Francisco as an oncologist with a group of oncologists that began to notice that my long-term survivor list was pretty short. And I began reading in the literature that everyone was, that after five years of chemo, in their own literature they recorded only a percent survival rate. Bob Wright: We know that 97 percent of people who undergo chemotherapy are dead in five years. That study was placed in the 2004 edition of the Journal of Oncology. It was the cancer doctors telling on themselves. Do I know this study to be true? It was a massive study done by epidemiologists who themselves were doctors. I interviewed the lead of that study just within the last six months and I said, “Is this still true today? This was published in 2004.” And he says, “It's absolutely as true today as it was when we published it back in 2004 and it may be getting worse.” When they tell us that chemo is our only chance, it's the first lie you hear.
And then you have the surgery. The second lie is, “We got it all.” You can't get it all if you're focused on tumors. You simply can't. The cancer is probably already metastatic. Surgery spills it. Radiation– proven not to kill the stem cells, but to enhance them. Well, we always hear, “Well, cancer came back.” It didn't come back, folks, it just never left. Ty: But chemotherapy is not only incredibly ineffective, but it’s also a hazardous material. Dr. Rashid Buttar: Let's look at chemotherapy, for example. Chemotherapy – yes, it can kill cancer cells, possibly. It can kill any cell. Here's the issue that I have with chemotherapy. When I see somebody that is handling chemotherapy, making chemotherapy, and they have to wear hazmat suits and gloves and, you know, “Can't touch it because it's toxic!” Then why are you going to give it to a person who is already sick? Does it make any sense? You ask a three-year-old child this question, I would bet you that 90 percent of the three year- old children would get it.
“If that looks dangerous then I shouldn't touch it.” That's it. It's almost like sending in napalm because you've got an ant problem. Yes, you'll take care of the ants, possibly, but then you're going to take care of every other form of life, including the grass and you're going to level the site just to try to get the ants. The collateral damage is the people that live there in the same house as the ants, meaning that the normal endogenous healthy cells are also going to get massacred. Just from a common sense standpoint, does it make any sense to take a therapy – let's use radiation as an example.
To take a therapy that we know is dangerous under any circumstance—you break your leg, you break your hand, you go to the hospital, they take you in to get an X-ray, they've got the skull and cross-bones, they've got the universal triangular radiation sign as a warning. Why is there a warning there? You tell me. Ty: Because it's known that it's harmful. Dr. Rashid Buttar: And how is it harmful? Ty: It damages DNA. Dr. Rashid Buttar: It damages DNA and what is the consequence of damaging that DNA? Ty: Potentially cancer.
Dr. Rashid Buttar: Bingo! So then why would we take something that we know has a very high propensity to create cancer and use that to treat cancer? Ty: It does seem insane to treat cancer with chemotherapy and radiation that actually cause cancer, doesn't it? But doctors are required to do this. As a matter of fact, they suffer adverse consequences if they do not prescribe chemo and radiation. They can even lose their license to practice medicine. Dr. Grinblat: There was one good doctor who was allowing some natural treatments when the parents were asked to introduce them. But he could not offer it himself, and when I asked him why, he said, “I couldn't do it, I will lose my job.” So it means oncologists here and in many other countries I'm sure, they are very restricted in protocols. They are not free to offer good treatment. They are very restricted in their protocols.
Dr. Joseph Mercola: There are many physicians who are truly, authentically motivated to want to help people. But there is this pervasive fear that they are going to be discredited and ostracized in their own community when they start to embrace some of these alternative philosophies. That's a strategy that is used to suppress this type of information. When you’ve got tens of billions of dollar of revenue, there is no limit to the clever and sophisticated techniques that you can acquire to manipulate the masses.
Dr. Badakhshan: It's against the law in California for oncologists to recommend integrative. Ty: Is it really? Dr. Badakhshan: They cannot tell you, “Go to integrative medicine.” Laura Bond: So, unfortunately, doctors in America, Australia, the UK, they can risk losing their medical license if they recommend anything other than the gold standard, which is chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In my mind those treatments are substandard. We know that chemotherapy and radiotherapy cause cancer, which is the very thing that they’re supposed to prevent. I mean, you look at the back of certain chemotherapy drugs like doxorubicin and you'll see a listed side effect is leukemia. Ty: And doxorubicin is a pretty popular chemo drug. Laura Bond: Absolutely. And you know as well as I do that the latest research from Harvard Medical School and UCLA is showing that chemotherapy actually stimulates cancer stem cells, which are the germ cells from which new tumors arise. Ty: Investigative Journalist Laura Bond just mentioned the fact that chemotherapy stimulates cancer stem cells. But what's a stem cell and what does this have to do with cancer? What is a cancer cell and where does it come from? Dr. Russell Blaylock: Well we used to think that any cell could become cancer except for a few limited ones.
We thought that if you irritate a cell enough and damage its DNA enough it'll become immortal and just keep growing. Now we found that's not true. Only stem cells seem to be the source of cancers. Stem cells are cells that haven't decided what they want to be yet. They are very primitive cells so they can be anything – a heart cell, a brain cell, lung cell. So these stem cells are all through your body just sitting quietly. But if you damage the DNA of the stem cell enough through free radicals or whatever, it will become immortal and then it just keeps producing more and more cells.
It wakes up and is producing lots and lots—thousands, millions, billions of cells and it becomes cancer. But it's the stem cell that's pouring it out. Kind of like a water hose, it's pouring all these droplets of water out. The trouble with chemotherapy and conventional treatments is they have no effect on the cancer stem cells. They only kill the daughter cells, the cells that are produced by it. So the tumor will shrink and they'll claim success, but you haven't killed the stem cell so it all just comes right back. And what they found is when it comes back, it comes back infinitely more aggressive than it did before. Ty: And why would that be? Dr. Russell Blaylock: It's kind of complex chemistry, but it has to do with the chemical changes in what we call the microenvironment of the stem cell. What you're doing you're producing a lot of cytokines around those stem cells.
These are inflammatory chemicals. Those inflammatory chemicals produce even greater DNA damage so cancer that comes back is more malignant than the one that started. What they are finding is, when you treat a patient with chemotherapy and radiation and you don't cure them, then you make cancer infinitely more aggressive and the patients usually die quicker. You have a room full of oncologists listening to the latest drug and they'll say, “Oh, this one. We're getting incredible responses with this drug.” Well, as they claim, what happens with that incredible response is it causes dramatic shrinkage of the tumor initially because it's just killing the daughter cells. And some are not even non-malignant cells, but it's not affecting the stem cell. So then cancer grows tremendously. But they can say, “Oh, we get a good response from this chemotherapeutic.” Ty: And when they say, “good response” they mean the tumor shrunk. Dr. Russell Blaylock: They mean initially it shrinks the tumor, but they don't say, “Well, six months later (or less), it actually is going to grow a lot faster and it is more likely to metastasize.” Dr.
Badakhshan: One of the problems with chemo is because when your patient do chemo, those circulating tumor cells, cancer cells that we have, once you have the primary tumor, they can mutate and they become more resistant to other treatments. Ty: Sayer, talk to us today about chemo and radiation resistance. Sayer Ji: Okay, great. I feel the word itself is almost like a euphemism for something really terrible, which is that when you are exposed to radiation that's based on gamma radiation, it is basically ionizing, it will cause damage to whatever basic tissue it's being exposed to. So, in the same way, chemotherapy is also designed to be genotoxic. You're trying to target fast replicating cells and by doing so, it is by definition also carcinogenic. Really, when we talk about resistance to chemo and radiation, it's really just a way of blaming the victim because we're all, when exposed to conventional chemo and radiation, we are going to be harmed and it is actually going to have a carcinogenic effect and it will often cause secondary cancers. Technically, I think people need to be aware that this isn't truly a cancer therapy. At best, it's palliative in the sense that it might shrink a tumor.
But really, the main thing I would like to get across is that it is going to cause an enrichment of the actual mother cell that's beneath the tumor, which is known as the cancer stem cell. Technically you are shrinking the tumor size, but you're enriching the population of the tumorigenic cells at the very same moment. Again, the idea that some people are resistant to chemo and radiation is really a false concept.
Everyone exposed to radiation and chemo will have secondary adverse effects, some of which are worse than the original condition they're being treated for. Ty: Stem cells are the key, and chemotherapy and radiation actually enrich stem cells. Now, we will get back to this topic a little bit later on. But that last statement from Sayer Ji really shook me. Everyone will have secondary adverse effects from chemo and radiation. Despite this fact, as we've already learned, many doctors from countries across the globe might even lose their license if they do not prescribe chemo and radiation. Are you beginning to see the way that Big Pharma has its tentacles throughout this medical cartel? Especially when it comes to chemotherapy? But that's not all.
Chemotherapy also creates side effects that can then be treated with more drugs. Let's listen to Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki elaborate on this issue. Dr. Aleksandra Niedzwiecki: Chemotherapy business is also a wonderful example of multiplicator. Because the side effects that chemotherapy produces is bone marrow transplants. This is the result of chemotherapy. Bleeding from the intestines that requires drug, anti-nausea drugs, and many others. Changes in the brain. There is even a term for it. It is called “chemo brain” because chemotherapy affects so many organs in the body and it's the reason for prescribing more drugs. So chemotherapy multiplies the business. This is why it lasts until this day. Chris Wark: Chemotherapy destroys your army, destroys your immune system. Not only that, it causes secondary cancers in the body. It makes existing cancer stem cells more aggressive, and it causes a host of lifelong, potentially lifelong, damages to the body.
From brain damage to hearing loss to neuropathy with loss of the use of your hands and feet to kidney and bladder damage, bone damage, heart damage, lung damage. It's just total collateral damage from chemotherapy. A.J. Lanigan: We didn't know 50 or 60 years ago the role that the immune system played like we do today because we didn't have the technology to measure it and identify it. But today, a person who is paying attention will see more and more medical articles. They'll see more and more stuff come out on the investigative news shows talking about breakthroughs in immunotherapy.
And how they are, in fact, tapping and harnessing the immune system to ferret out cancer and kill it in a very specific manner, instead of this global napalming of the body with chemo and radiation. Which, I don't know that it's ever been successful at any level except to provide more money for the administration and, I guess, the folks that are coming out with that. If the money had been poured into immunotherapy over the last 50 years as it has been these other attempts that ended up failing, I'd have to believe that the results would be a whole lot better.
There would certainly have been a lot less suffering. I think anybody who has met or been close to someone undergoing chemo and radiation will admit that it is a suffering instead of a treatment. Dr. Matthias Rath: In order for having a maximum chance of fighting and overcoming cancer, we need an intact immune system. That, too, makes the current approach of chemotherapy so unethical. It destroys – the chemotherapy – the first organ that is affected, actually the target organ, is the bone marrow.
The destruction of the generation of the defense cells, leukocytes, etc. are built in the bone marrow. From the very onset, from the very planning of chemotherapy from the very scientific approach, it is a deception. It is an unethical, deceptive business that creates illusions for millions of people and every scientist involved in it. I'm not blaming the doctors because they sometimes don't have the education to go at that length of it. But every scientist knows that it is a huge fraud. Those who say they don't, they should quit the job of being a scientist. Ty: I appreciate what Dr. Rath just said, that doctors are not educated about this. They don't understand that chemotherapy is a huge fraud, but that every scientist that doesn't understand and admit that chemotherapy is a huge fraud, they should quit the job of being a scientist. Now, Dr. Rath and A.J. Lanigan, an immunologist, just both addressed the same topic: that the immune system is the key to fighting cancer and to health.
One of the interesting things about chemotherapy is that it totally destroys and devastates the immune system. Another unique thing about chemotherapy that many people don't know is that oncologists can actually make kickbacks from prescribing chemotherapy drugs. This is a unique characteristic of the cancer industry that does not apply anywhere else in pharmaceutical drugs. Dr. Sunil Pai: Cancer is a big business. It's over $127 billion that is being spent on cancer care. A majority of that is in the pharmaceutical drug costs of the care. The average patient now, according to a study that came out by Kaiser Health last year, was that they spend between $10,000 a month and $30,000 a month. So $10,000 to $30,000 a month just for the chemotherapy agents that they are using. This price keeps on going up higher and higher, so the average person has a three to four months of treatment. Some people have continuously ongoing treatment so they suppress cancer, but we're not curing cancer for example, and that can go up to 12 months or more.
They keep coming back for “tune-ups” they would say. Most people don't realize that in cancer treatments that the facility, or more importantly the physician that is prescribing some of these medications, say if the person is a Medicare patient, the Government allows the physician to charge the cost of the drug plus a percentage. Medicare, for example, gives six percent of the cost of the drug as a reimbursement for de facto aspects of overhead costs, whatever it was. What happens is, if I was a physician and I was in that system, for example, I would prescribe a $100 drug, I would get $back. If I prescribe a $10,000 drug, I get $600 back.
Right? Ty: In other realms that would be called a kickback. But in this realm, since it is legal— Dr. Sunil Pai: It's a reimbursement. Ty: It's a reimbursement. Dr. Sunil Pai: Right. The thing is this is the only field, in oncological care, that gets that type of reimbursement. Dr. Irvin Sahni: Oncology is an unbelievably lucrative field of medicine especially when you are running the business side of it. Ty: Oncology is an incredibly lucrative business. Maybe it's because of this fact that we see stories like the story of Dr. Farid Fata in Michigan. He was an oncologist that over the last several years—he was recently convicted of prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients that didn't need it. Many of whom didn't even have cancer, and sadly, many of whom died from the chemotherapy.
Dr. Irvin Sahni: You know when I hear about this guy, you start thinking about Charles Manson. You start thinking about Ted Bundy. You start thinking about Adolf Hitler, Stalin or any of the many, many people that have hurt large groups of people. Mass murderers, rapists, whatever you want to call them, people that are tyrannical. This guy in one sense is worse than, say, Adolf Hitler because at least if you were a victim of Adolf Hitler you knew when the SS was coming or you knew when Adolf Hitler was coming, you better run. Or if you're one African tribe attacking another African tribe, when the guys are coming down the road with the machine guns, you know to run. But in this case, you're trusting this person with your life. You are going to him asking for help. And even in cases where people really did have cancer, he was inappropriately continuing to administer chemotherapy to them when they didn't need it or even worse, or just as bad or worse, giving chemotherapy to people who simply didn't even have cancer.
To me, that's just unbelievable. It really is mind-boggling, that someone could be that evil and that greedy. Mike Adams: He's been sentenced, I believe, to 45 years in prison. But the most disturbing thing about this is not that he was caught and that he has been sentenced to prison. The disturbing thing is that there are hundreds of other cancer doctors out there doing the same thing and they haven't been caught and they get away with so much deception, violating medical ethics, lying to patients. Most patients never question their doctors because they think the doctor is the sole authority. Most patients don't even get a second opinion. Most patients believe the explanations, the diagnoses that the cancer doctors give them. “Oh, this shadow on this X-ray, this means you have cancer. We have to start now or you're going to die.” The fear tactics that these oncologists use are highly unethical and really should be criminal. It is completely unacceptable that oncologists profit from the treatments that are justified by their own diagnosis.
It's kind of like taking your car to a greasy mechanic somewhere that's not very honest and he says, “Well, yeah, your carburetor needs to be replaced or car is going to blow up down the road.” But he's just making that up because he wants the business, and if you believe him, then you're going to have to pay all this money for a procedure that your car didn't need. The same thing happens in the cancer industry every day in America. Ty: I agree with Mike Adams. As he just mentioned, we must question our doctors, we cannot place blind faith in them.
We must be educated and that is why we are on this mission with The Truth about Cancer to educate you on these issues. Why are we addressing chemotherapy at such length? Because you must know the history of chemotherapy. You must be informed about the dangers of chemotherapy if you are going to make an informed decision. Knowledge is power and people are dying because they don't have this knowledge.
It seems to me that the FDA in the United States and the TGA in Australia and other regulatory bodies across the globe should be actually protecting us from chemotherapy drugs and other toxic substances. Burton Goldberg, the voice of alternative medicine, gave us this telling quote. Burton Goldberg: The agencies that were designed to protect humanity are protecting the industry they are supposed to protect us from. John Rappaport: Well, any drug that is on the market available through a prescription that has serious and widespread adverse effects, as they say, was previously declared safe and effective by the FDA.
That's the only reason that drug reached the market. So if, after approval, it suddenly has opposite effects, very dangerous, that's fraud. Fraud at the level of the FDA for not investigating the drug properly or concealing the truth. Ty: And the FDA, on its own website openly admits that 100,000 plus people die each and every year from properly prescribed prescription drugs. What does this mean, the term “properly prescribed prescription drugs?” This means, according to John Rappaport, these are drugs that were previously declared to be safe and effective. But what does it mean to be declared “safe and effective”? What is the drug approval process that would declare a drug safe and effective? Sayer Ji: The real interesting thing, Ty, is that what they do is drug companies pour literally a billion dollars into the research needed to get FDA drug approval. That starts with finding lead compounds to produce a synthetic chemical that when they go through phase one, two, three, human trials with. But when they do this, they pour inadvertently a billion dollars or more – all of these drug companies – into looking at turmeric, resveratrol, green tea, and literally thousands of compounds and they find all this research showing it's superior to chemotherapy.
Those studies are there and people don't know about them. But they also can't expect those studies on things you grow in your backyard that cure cancer to receive a billion dollars of capital because the whole game is based on producing a synthetic analog to get a patent, to get FDA drug approval. And then, of course, more than 50 percent of FDA approved drugs, before the patent life expires, get pulled off the market because of the devastation and death that they cause. So the whole system is rigged. Ty: I would have to agree with Sayer Ji. The system is rigged. But oftentimes so are the articles that would validate the safety and efficacy of a particular drug.
Let's listen to Dr. Russell Blaylock as he describes the way that even doctors are duped with ghost-written articles. Dr. Russell Blaylock: What happens sometimes, in fact, it's happening more often than we would like—and there's a lot of stuff being written by the people that look into medical journal articles. But these pharmaceutical companies have written for them “ghost articles” they call them. And what they'll do they'll get this company that writes articles that look just like beautiful medical articles with all the graphs and charts and numbers and references. They'll write this article without any authors for the study because they wrote it, and then they'll go to an oncologist that is very well known and say, “Wouldn't you like to put your name on this article? If you do it's going to be in a very prestigious journal – The New England Journal of Medicine or some oncology journal that is very prestigious. A lot of these people are tempted because this puts their name even further out front. So they'll say, “Yeah, put my name on there.” So they'll put a string of names on the article who had nothing to do with writing it, had nothing to do with the study, and they'll end up in a very prestigious journal.
These journals they choose are the ones that affect how doctors behave, how they treat patients. They'll read this article not knowing it's a ghost article and they say, “Gee, they've got tremendous responses and there's hardly any complications.” So they'll order the drug and then they'll tell the patient the same thing they got out of that article. There's hardly any complications, patients are doing very well, and it's a good chance that this could cure you. Ty: And it's not an independent article. Dr. Russell Blaylock: It's not an independent article and the doctors have been tricked and the patients have been tricked. Dr. Robert Gorter: It also briefly was a big scandal, but nobody really paid attention. That the FDA approved about four years ago, approved an antibiotic. The data was submitted by a French company. But it turned out the study was never done. Ty: Falsified completely.
Dr. Robert Gorter: It wasn't even done. Ty: This next physician asked that we not show his face, but listen to what he has to say about the way that money has corrupted the drug approval process. Doctor: I was actually groomed to become a person in one of the most successful clinical trials companies in the country. They picked me for medical—this is how it’s like The Firm—they pick you, they help you through, and then you're supposed to join them. That's what you're supposed to do. You’re like “Great, I get to join the FIRM. I get the big car, get the big house, and then you start realizing, once you start looking at data and how we’re manipulating data and this and that.
And they are people behind these drugs. But that's the standard now, right? So I can get any drug passed. I can get any study manipulated. It's a pay to play the game. We sat in rooms where we had CEOs of the top companies come in and say, “This is what it is.” The FDA would say something like, “It doesn't work.” And then within an hour, we can have a phone call with six different universities and statisticians, $3,000 each person to work on two hours of crunching numbers, flip the numbers out, three editorial reviews and then in three months the perception of that has changed. “It’s the greatest and best miracle drug ever,” although they didn’t ever show anything to support it they make billions of dollars. As long as we put a black box warning everybody makes money.
And the physicians, through no fault of their own, a lot of them are just doing what they are told. But we can go back in history where did we hear that “I’m just following orders.” That's not a good way to do it. Ty: But falsifying research and producing toxic prescription drugs, that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Big Pharma.
Let's have a listen to Dr. Matthias Rath as he describes the way that three big pharma companies– Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF– they were responsible, directly, for creating the concentration camps of Birkenau and Auschwitz. Dr. Matthias Rath: We were in Auschwitz because we have a friendship with some of the survivors that are still alive from that time. And since you asked me this question I may just spend a moment on something that is very little known about Auschwitz. We've been told in the history book it was a camp that was built to annihilate Jewish people and Slavic people and people that the Nazis didn't like in the conquered countries. But what made Auschwitz the megadeath extermination camp was actually the decision by Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF to build the largest industrial plant of wartime in Europe. It is called IG Auschwitz, 100 percent subsidiary of Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. The plant was eight kilometers long, about five miles long and two miles wide.
So it's a giant industrial area. And the Birkenau concentration camp, the huge camp that was featured in Schindler's List, in that movie, was a deliberate decision to supply slave labor for the construction of this industrial plant. So without the interest that we just touched upon that put profits over lives, Auschwitz would never have had this meaning. The decision of Wannsee, which was the decision by the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish people, was taken roughly one year after the decision of IG Farben to build this plant. So the Nazis used the death apparatus that was already existing because of the slave labor camp being in existence. The chimneys were burning. IG Farben was “taking care” of the sick people. After three months on average, the people were emaciated and so they were just put to the gas chamber and shot up in the chimney. So I used a few more sentences than normal to exemplify. If we are talking today that there is an industry among humanity that sacrifices millions of lives or puts them at risk for profit—we are sometimes, you included, being attacked as being out of this world, conspiracy people.
Now we turn around, we look at Auschwitz, we look at the industrial plant. We look at the concentration, extermination plant being built, initially built, to serve as slave labor camp for that purpose. And we can say, “They've done it before.” Ty: I'm literally speechless. Millions of Jews were annihilated during World War II and those concentration camps were built by Big Pharma to provide slave labor. As Dr. Rath said, they've done it before, they'll do it again. We must understand that people's lives once again are being sacrificed for the almighty dollar. Did you learn this in history class? I certainly didn't. But please keep an open mind as we're approaching these subjects. We must understand history if we're going to understand the current state of modern medicine. Dr. Matthias Rath: I'm a German. I didn't learn anything about that. I was 35 years old when I learned about Bayer, BASF, the largest pharmaceutical companies at that time were actually building, or responsible for, the extermination camp at Auschwitz.
Then I wanted to know more and there was nothing. So we finally found in the archives of the US, in Washington, the US National Library the records of, case numbers, six of the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunals. We are told that it was only one tribunal against the main war criminals, but in fact, there were 12. Number six was against Bayer, BASF, and Hoechstat the same. At that time they were forming a cartel by the name of IG Farben. And that whole case lasted an entire year against 24 managers of these pharmaceutical and chemical companies. It showed that they were largely financing the rise of the Nazis to power. That they supplied 100 percent of the raw materials so that the Nazis could lead the war including 100 percent of the synthetic gasoline, rubber, 100 percent of the explosives. The report came to the conclusion, the US prosecutor said, “Without IG Farben, World War II would not have been possible.” In other words, we have to redefine history.
Even if we talk about cancer today, we need to know those things. That these interests for expanding patented product markets worldwide—they were risking, eventually they were responsible for the death of 60 million people in World War II. That shows you the dimension of the topic that we are talking about today. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that these interests will not do if the profit is high enough, then and now. Ty: Did you know that one of the 12 Nuremberg Tribunals was actually against Big Pharma? World War II actually could never have happened without the involvement of big pharmaceutical companies, specifically IG Farben. Dr. Rath mentioned patents. The cancer industry – yes, it is an industry – is part and parcel with the multinational pharmaceutical companies. And the way that multinational pharmaceutical companies make their money is through patents. Big Pharma patents drugs and they call that medicine. But do patented molecules, this medicine that they’ve created, does this have a place in modern healthcare? Or I think maybe the bigger question is, can we, as mortal men, improve on nature? Dr.
Jonathan Wright: Patent medicines do not belong in human bodies and I know I keep saying “patent medicines” and people aren't accustomed to that. They think of the 19th century. I'm sorry, but all the giant pharmaceutical companies are, are holders of patents for molecule after molecule after molecule that is sort of like what belongs in the body. Just sort of enough to do something, but enough to cause a lot of damage, too. So if we're going to be as healthy as we can in the bodies we now have, we have to use only the substance and energy that belongs in the body. It makes no sense using patent medications. Patents are wonderful for certain things, protection of intellectual property rights and so forth, but patents have no place in healthcare. Dr. Nalini Chilkov: You can't patent nature, which is why we don't get a lot of money for research in plant medicine, but then they'll make a molecule that looks like the molecule from nature and then that pharmaceutical company can own it. But that's not really the same animal.
Mike Adams: You cannot take and isolate every chemical out of a plant and expect that plant to have the same healing powers. This is why chemical cancer medicine fails 97 percent of the time. Whereas plant medicine, being holistic, is safer, it’s more efficacious (in other words it works better), it's more affordable, readily available, and you don't have to pay patent fees to Mother Nature. Dr. Patrick Quillin: Francis Bacon was the founder of the modern scientific principle in 1600. He said, “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.” What we're doing in modern medicine is saying, “We don't care about the rules, we're going to change the rules. We know that you need vitamin D and sunshine, but we're going to say we can't patent that so we're going to try and come up with a drug that bypasses all of those pathways.” Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.
Ty: I love that quote from Dr. Quillin, “Nature, in order to be commanded, must be obeyed.” And I think that's where big pharmaceutical companies fail because they try to take nature and maybe a molecule from nature and tweak it and change it, but then it never works as well as the original molecule. Why do they tweak and change it? So that they can patent it. We've already seen about the greed in this patent medicine industry, this cancer industry. Remember early in the show we talked about the war on cancer. I have a question for you. What if the real war on cancer was actually a turf war aimed at protecting its profits? Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: This is a total war. The Texas Medical Board is going after my doctors, is going after my assistants. They are suing everybody because of using the treatment which is non-conventional.
Ty: According to Dr. Burzynski, the real war is actually being fought against doctors who dare to step outside the box and use any kind of non-conventional treatment that is not approved. Dr. Burzynski has been persecuted heavily for decades. Another doctor that has been heavily persecuted is Dr. Jonathan Wright. His crime? Using natural medicine that was outside of the Standard of Care and was not an approved treatment. Dr. Jonathan Wright: And on May 6th, 1992 they raided our clinic with guns drawn. Ty: No kidding? Dr. Jonathan Wright: No kidding. Yes. They told the King County Sheriff that we were selling drugs. Because remember they called feces a drug and so vitamins are drugs, anything used for treatment is, according to them, a drug. Okay, we were selling drugs. So the King County Sheriff's Office was expecting drug dealers and, they raided with guns. One of them came in and stuck his gun within a few feet of the receptionist’s face. One thing though, they didn't have jackboots. You've heard of the jackboots and all that.
They had on regular shoes, and even though they had guns, they wore regular shoes and kicked the doors in with their regular shoes. The doors were locked. You see they had the raid shortly before 9 am. And how do we know they kicked the doors in? Because somebody was sitting outside in a wheelchair waiting for his appointment and he saw these guys come and kick the doors in. They came in with guns and what do they do? They herded all the employees into a corner of the reception area and they proceeded to start seizing equipment, and medical records, and payroll records, and banking records, and everything. And they told the King County Police it was because we were dealing drugs.
So anyway, that's what they did and they empaneled a grand jury. Eighteen months later, nothing. They empaneled a second grand jury, another 18 months, nothing. No indictments. After the second grand jury failed to return an indictment and the first one did, too, they then announced to the newspapers – not to me, they did not call me or my attorney – they announced to the newspapers they were closing the investigation. And both my attorney and me, we read about it in the newspaper. Never got the patient records back. Never got the banking records back. We had to reconstruct as best we could on the banking records. On the patient records, we just had to ask people to tell us what they told us before. But no, that never came back. Ty: So Dr. Wright lost all of his patient records and in the end, he was never convicted of anything. This almost sounds like there is a conspiracy, doesn't it? People are afraid to use that term “conspiracy” because people might think you're nuts. But what if I told you that the United States Senate concluded that there was a conspiracy to suppress natural cancer treatments. Would that matter to you? Now people hear this and they may say, “You know this sounds conspiratorial.” Right? You’ve heard of the Fitzgerald Report.
Right? Dr. Jonathan Wright: I have a copy of some of the conclusions over here. Should I read them to people? Ty: Absolutely, yes. The Fitzgerald Report. Tell the viewers what the Fitzgerald Report was. Dr. Jonathan Wright: I'll tell them. Or you can tell them and I'll just read it. Ty: You go ahead and tell them. Dr. Jonathan Wright: The Fitzgerald Report was published in the Congressional Record, folks, the Congressional Record. Actually, it was an appendix to the Congressional Record. And Fitzgerald was an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission. Now, I'm going to read this because I've got to read you the citations because people will otherwise think it is a conspiracy theory.
1953. He was an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, a Senator whose grandson had been cured of cancer by natural means, and had a lot of trouble getting that cure done, asked him to investigate. Now here's just one quote. Fitzgerald says, “My investigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist.” This is testimony before Congress by a Chief Investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission. “A conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs.” He calls it all drugs because, I'm sorry, but most people in conventional medicine call even vitamins drugs. If it's a treatment, it's a drug. And you do know that FDA declared stool a drug some two years ago. And then they got so much ridicule from the academic centers that were doing these fecal transplants that they undeclared stool a drug. But for a while, feces was a drug.
How do you like that? Anyway, back to Fitzgerald. I know. It just seems weird. Ty: Insane. Dr. Jonathan Wright: Okay. “…to stop the free flow and use of drugs in Interstate Commerce, which allegedly have solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds had been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics.” Notice he uses the word destroy. What he's talking about is the occasions when an FDA went in with sledgehammers and broke up Royal Rife equipment in the office of Dr.
Ruth Drown where they made someone throw all of his books that he had written on one aspect of energetic medicine. They were all burned in a bonfire in New Jersey. Book burning. Sledgehammers. Now Fitzgerald didn't say that. You can find that other part. I'll go back to Fitzgerald, but that's what he means by “destroy.” That's why he used the word “destroy.” Okay. “To destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories, which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations.” It's got nothing to do with the law, it's got to do with a viewpoint of medical associations. “Benedict Fitzgerald, Benedict S. Fitzgerald,” excuse me, “Junior Special Counsel, United States Committee on Interstate Foreign Commerce, 1953.” And his report goes into a pages-long report of suppression of natural treatments and it's in the Congressional Record.
And did anybody ever do anything about this? No. And part of what he says in that report is a collusion, the actual conspiracy, is between Los Federales at FDA, the patent medicine companies, and the AMA. That's where the conspiracy that Fitzgerald identifies is. Ty: The Fitzgerald Report of 1953 which concluded “there was an active conspiracy to suppress natural cancer treatments in the United States” was due to the suppression of laetrile. More suppression of laetrile followed over the next couple of decades. Dr. Joseph Mercola: First of all what is laetrile? Laetrile is also called amygdalin and vitamin B17. And there actually have been investigations showing that it has some benefit to the use of treatment of cancer, and it may be because cyanide is a component of laetrile and that may also be a nutritional deficiency.
It provides some benefits that are nutrients that the body needs to fight these malignancies. But anyway, there was a Japanese researcher at Sloan Kettering who was studying this and Dr. Ralph Moss was an investigative journalist there at the time and he started covering it. He appeared to have beneficial results, but then for some unbeknownst reason the information was suppressed and that information was not allowed to be disseminated and Dr. Moss wrote extensively about it. It was about mid-1970s. I'm not sure how beneficial laetrile is. I have no experience with it, but it is an interesting example of how this type of—these alternative approaches are routinely suppressed when they are opposed to the traditional, conventional approaches. Because there is such a significant amount of funding that is involved. The big agencies, the FDA, of course, the AMA and American Cancer Society which are all in some way influenced by the drug cartels. They are funded to oppose these and essentially classify them as quackery. It's a common strategy that is used for many alternative treatments. Laetrile is one of the earlier ones where they targeted, but there are dozens and dozens since then.
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: There is merciless harassment by the authorities of doctors who are inventors. So now in going through three years of harassment by Texas Medical Board. And one of the reasons why I am going through this is I use a treatment which is not the standard treatment for pancreatic cancer. I use this for the type of incurable lung cancer, like malignant mesothelioma, the patient is surviving now five years. He would be dead a long time ago. And these results were evaluated by outside oncologists. Amazing results, okay? I am being harassed because the Texas Board is saying, “You use a treatment which is not standard.” Dr. Rashid Buttar: If you do the Standard of Care and you give chemo and people die, it’s okay. If you don’t do the standard care and people live, that’s not okay. It is politically incorrect. So this is the amazing thing: you take a poison, you give it to people, they die, it’s part and parcel of the normal status quo or modus operandi, this is how it’s supposed to be.
Now you break that. You actually do something that’s not toxic, you help patients, they live. “Hey. We don’t care whether the patient lives or not. That’s irrelevant, it’s not part of the Standard of Care. Dr. Tullio Simoncini: The risk of reprisal, the risk of the jail, and the persecution. It is unbelievable. They tried to shut me down in any way. Yes. Because, you know—tell me one big revolutionary discovery that it was not shut down. Tell me one. There is no chance, no possibility to escape. Because when you see something that is very new and people cannot think about it, you are persecuted because you destabilize all the system. So any discovery, big, true discovery, makes the old system useless. That’s why you are shut down. Because we live in a medieval status. This is the real reason why cancer is still killing millions of people. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: It’s not easy to treat these advanced patients because you are continuously being harassed for doing this. It is incredible. We should be rewarded. We should be set as the example.
We are saving the lives of people who have been sentenced to die. No! We are unmercifully harassed by lawyers, by people who know nothing about treatment, who are stupid puppets of the guys behind who know very well what we can offer, whether they’re acting these guys like in Nazi Germany and they are simply obeying orders because they are programmed this way. I think maybe with time they will do some type of Nuremberg trials. All of these white collar nicely dressed lawyers and clerks who are chewing the money of taxpayers may be held accountable for what they do. Because many people died because of their actions. They do it secretly. They are not exposed. That feel that they are beyond any punishment and they can continue to do this type of work.
Dr. Rob Verkerk: If you look at someone who has cancer—and you’ve had for a long time in Europe this notion that, if you’re using a natural approach, you run the risk as a doctor of having your license revoked. If you’re a nonmedical practitioner, you can be basically put into jail as the Cancer Act 1939 in the UK to deal with you. This is utterly wrong because an individual that has cancer is just another individual whose body needs nourishment and support more than a person who is healthy. And yet to have that denied to those individuals is a real loss of fundamental rights of freedoms and that needs to be changed. Ty: It’s a crime. Dr. Rob Verkerk: It is a crime, indeed. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski: Maybe we need to be awakened because, obviously, this is killing people. Ty: If you withhold treatment that can save someone’s life, isn’t that the same thing as murder? I would have to agree with Dr.
Burzynski and Dr. Verkerk. But this is not the only time that the medical industry has been guilty of conspiracy against natural physicians. Dr. Patrick Vickers: In 1987 four chiropractors from Illinois, particularly Chester Wilk – he was the head chiropractor that took the AMA to court – they actually took the entire American Medical Association to court. Accusing them of having a branch within their organization designed to eliminate chiropractic as a profession, a licensed profession they were trying to eliminate through the use of propaganda. A Federal District Court judge in Illinois, Susan Getzendanner, in 1987, found the AMA guilty of conspiracy.
That was the judgment. So if anybody tells you when you’re talking about these things, “Oh, you’re just a conspiracy theorist,” you can lead them straight to the Wilk versus the AMA, the court ruling of 1987, and the judgment was guilty of conspiracy. Ty: Are you beginning to get the picture here? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact according to the courts. Now, why are we sharing this with you? Because you must understand the belly of this beast if you’re going to believe the truth. One of the many victims of this conspiracy to suppress natural cancer treatments is a man named Jason Vale. Last year I had the privilege of interviewing him and he shared with me the true story of how he was arrested, convicted, and spent five years in federal prison – not for murder or rape or assault – but for selling an unapproved cancer treatment, namely apricot seeds, which contain laetrile, on his website.
But Jason is not alone. Almost 80 years ago a scientist named Royal Raymond Rife faced jail time for using an unapproved treatment. R. Webster Kehr: In the 1930s, Royal Rife, Dr. Royal Rife who was a microbiologist, knew that there were microbes inside the cancer cells. And he came up with an electro-medicine device, a couple of them actually, which was designed to do nothing but kill the microbes inside the cancer cells. Dr. Jonathan Wright: He did something very smart, taking from Einstein the cue that everything has its own vibratory frequency – molecules do, people do, everything has its vibratory frequency. He determined the vibratory frequency of those microorganisms and then he sent in a beam, which is why the machine is called a beam ray – he sent a beam that had a dissonant frequency. What’s that? Have you ever tried to tune your radio and you tune it just right and it’s nice and clear, crystal clear, but you go a little bit off and it’s in addition to the talk? That’s dissonance.
You are almost on the right frequency, but not quite. So he sends in a dissonant frequency that is almost what these bacteria do, but they can’t stand that because they are vibrating and are really close. So basically they rupture and die, all the bacteria do. He beamed them, and the cancers were cured. Now, it’s more complicated than that. He had to follow certain doses of rays and certain days and so forth, but the cancers were cured and it was celebrated in the Los Angeles Times.
He reports that he was visited by two people, one being Morris Fishbein of the AMA, who was President at the time, and another person. I believe him because I have read that same report in a doctor’s book from Alabama who was curing cancer with intravenous hydrochloric acid. I’m not kidding you, it’s published for three years, I’ve got all of his reports. He was visited by two men from the AMA saying that he should sell them his treatments or he would never be published again. He refused to sell and he was never published again. I have the three years’ worth of reports. I can’t get any more, there weren’t anymore. Rife had the same visitation and so did other cancer-treating practitioners. Visitations from AMA telling us, “You sell us your stuff or we’ll do you.” R. Webster Kehr: He developed this technology. The American Medical Association tried to buy him out and he refused because he did not trust them. Good for him. So the Food and Drug Administration went down and destroyed his laboratory, his equipment, and destroyed all of his inventory.
Ty: In the end, Dr. Rife’s lab was burned, his records were stolen, his life was ruined, and he eventually died of a drug overdose. Harry Hoxsey is another example of a man who was treating and curing cancer naturally that was heavily persecuted. Now, this is a story that is near and dear to my heart because in 1996 when my father, Graham Bollinger, was diagnosed with stomach cancer we were doing everything that we possibly could to take him to what is called the Hoxsey Clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. Unfortunately, Dad died before we could get him to the Hoxsey Clinic, which is now called the Biomedical Center. That’s why it was so exciting to me and The Truth about Cancer Team to travel to Tijuana, Mexico and visit the Biomedical Center to learn more about Harry Hoxsey’s Treatment, which is still being used there. It’s called the Hoxsey Tonic, and the rest of that protocol.
Another exciting thing for me personally was to be able to meet Liz Jonas. Now, Liz Jonas is the sister of Mildred Nelson, and Mildred Nelson was Harry Hoxsey’s, Chief Nurse. Liz Jonas: I’m Liz Jonas and my sister was Mildred Nelson. I have no medical background. Mine is business. Mildred was the medical one in our family. My mom had cancer – ovarian and uterus – and they had planted radiation in her body and burned her very bad and then told her to go home and die. My dad heard about Harry Hoxsey who was in Dallas, Texas and we lived in Jacksboro, which is about 90 miles. So my dad called my sister. She was the oldest in our family. There were seven of us and asked her to come to drive for him. He was an old-timey rancher. She said, “What are you going to Dallas for?” She said, “To get parts for the tractor?” And he said, “No. I’m taking your mother to the doctor.” So she came and drove.
And through the day, Hoxsey found out she was a nurse and offered her a job. And my dad told him, “No, she doesn’t want to work for you. She thinks you’re a quack.” He offered for her to go look in all his files, but she didn’t. She couldn’t talk to my mother and daddy out of this, so she decided to go to work for him to prove that he was a quack and to save her mom. Our mom lived to be 99 years old. Ty: What a great story. Liz’s sister, Mildred Nelson, wanted to prove that Harry Hoxsey was a quack.
But she ended up becoming his chief nurse and their mom lived to be 99 years old. Now the head of the AMA at that time was Morris Fishbein. He was the same man who was head of the AMA when Royal Raymond Rife was destroyed. And the AMA wanted to buy out the Hoxsey Formula. The almost signed the paperwork, but… Liz Jonas: They got to the point of signing the papers and he said, “You have to make this available to everybody.” And they said, “We may not make it available to anybody.
We may not use it even.” And he said, “No, then I won’t sell it.” Ty: So they basically wanted to buy it and bury it. Liz Jonas: Bury it, yes. Ty: Harry was arrested numerous times. Liz Jonas: Numerous. Ty: What were the charges? Liz Jonas: All different kinds. Just whatever they came up with, you know. But the patients sometimes—he always carried a roll of bills in his pocket with him, a big roll of bills. And he made his money, in my understanding, in a penny stock, all. Penny stock. But he carried a big roll of bills with him and sometimes he’d bail himself out. Sometimes he’d just stay in jail. The patients would come and bring food and they would circle the whole block. So they would just let him out to get rid of the patients. Ty: Wow! If that’s not a testimony to Harry and the treatment, then nothing is. So the patients would surround the jail.
Liz Jonas: Yes. Surround the jail. Can you imagine? Ty: No, I can’t. I mean not today. But this was back when, the 40s, 50s? Liz Jonas: In the 40s. But his patients were very loyal to him because the AMA and FDA, if they would find out they were going to mail medicine to a patient and they would be standing at the patient’s door and take the medicines so the patients couldn’t have it. When Mildred moved the clinic to Mexico, he told her, he said, “You have to drop the Hoxsey name.” And she said, “I can’t do that.” And he said, “Yeah, you have to. That’s what they’re after. They are mad at me. They’re after me.” So that is where the Biomedical came in. But then the patients wouldn’t drop it. We’re still known as the Hoxsey Clinic. And that’s what we’re put on this earth for. Ty: It is. Liz Jonas: Really. If you really stop and think about it, we’re supposed to help each other. Ty: That’s right. I have to agree with Liz. One of the main reasons that we are put here on earth is to help other people and I commend her and the doctors there at the Hoxsey Clinic, the Biomedical Center, for doing this.
One of the doctors there at the Biomedical Center that we interviewed, was Dr. Elias Gutierrez. Here is some of his interview. Dr. Elias Gutierrez: Basically, what everything spins around is what is known as the Hoxsey Formula. It’s a liquid made with a combination of several herbs and minerals. And because of the way that it’s put together, it selectively targets only the malignant cells. Any cell with bad DNA or bad metabolism, those are the ones that are going to be destroyed. Of course, there are a few vitamins. There is diet, which is not a difficult one to follow and we also use a lot of herbal, both occidental and Chinese herbal formulas. Ty: The formula that you’re using, is this pretty much the same formula that Harry Hoxsey used 80-100 years ago? Dr. Elias Gutierrez: Exactly the same. It was passed down from Hoxsey over to Mildred and then Mildred brought it into the clinic and then she passed it on to Liz who is the owner now. She is Mildred’s sister. And we still use basically exactly the same formula as it was being used in Texas.
Ty: So if somebody comes into the Hoxsey Clinic here and they want treatment, how long does treatment typically last? Dr. Elias Gutierrez: This is a clinic that does something in a different way than most of the regular things. We try to do everything on a single day. People come in in the morning. They get registered. They go through the laboratory, they go through the X-rays, they get their consultation, a very thorough physical examination. And then we have to wait until we get the reports from the laboratory X-rays, which takes a couple of hours. And then we call the people up for a second visit in the afternoon and we explain all the findings to them. We give them their instructive, their treatments, and they just pick up their supplies and make their payments and go home.
This is something you can do at home. You don’t have to be necessarily hospitalized to do it. They stay on the diet and they come back for a checkup every three, every six months, every year. Eventually, they just come back every two or three years. Ty: Being a one-day treatment, the Hoxsey Treatment is relatively affordable? Dr. Elias Gutierrez: I think so. And we’re the cheapest clinic in town. Ty: Are you really? Dr. Elias Gutierrez: Oh yeah. David Olson: Eight and a half years ago, back in August of ’06, I couldn’t lay down. As a matter of fact, Zack was with me on a motor car trip on the railroad. The seat belt starting hurting on the way back from the trip. We went about 300 miles, and the seatbelt started feeling tight. The next week I had another trip and coming back the seat belt was also tight.
And shortly after that, I couldn’t lay down. I went to Mayo Clinic and was diagnosed. The first time they said I didn’t have cancer and in a two week period they found out I did have cancer pretty bad and it was none-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. I had it in the esophagus, the liver, the kidney, lymph nodes all under the arm and in the groin. I had a tumor bigger than a volleyball in the stomach and then in the bones, Stage 4. And the doctor gave me three days to three months. One doctor says, “You know the last guy we treated like you made it three days.” So it was not a very good forecast. The day I found out that I had it in the bones, I found out about it at two o’clock up on the tenth floor of the Rochester Mayo Clinic, at the Gonda Building.
Things looked very bleak. On the way, after we left Rochester, for instance, we had to be at a flight in Minneapolis at four o’clock that day and didn’t find out till after two and we made the plane by 13 minutes to get down here. It’s just no chance of living afterward. But here it’s been eight and a half years later and I’ve not had cancer for eight years and three months. They have not found it. The Mayo Clinic could not find, they haven’t found it here. There is no cancer that is visible anymore.
We started at the Mayo Clinic, had 13 doctors at Mayo Clinic. And they gave me the same forecast of three days to three months. And I went up to the University of Minnesota and then to Fairview Hospital and Masonic Cancer Center. I received a death sentence from 17 doctors, and the 18th one that was down here, Dr. Gutierrez, and it was no big deal to him. It was bad, yes, but nothing special.
And, as far as I know, I was taking more medicine, more tonic than any other patient I ever talked to so far. I’ve talked to a lot of patients that I have sent down here and other patients. I was taking the strongest dose they had, but I never missed a day of work. It never affected my ability to do whatever, but it made the total difference in life. And this life is fantastic. I mean, I’ve got three grandsons, but the only one that can come with me once in a while, the other two are very busy.
This one here gets to come with me. We do a lot of things together including come down for Jeep rides and stuff. We would never have been able to have that if I hadn’t been here so I could get some help, a lot of help. Life. Life is great. Life is great. Ty: What an encouraging story from Dave who has been cancer free now for eight years due to the Hoxsey Formula, and who was told by 17 traditional doctors that he had no hope and that even the toxic chemotherapy drugs couldn’t save him.
I want to be clear. We are not saying that everyone that works in the medical industry, the cancer industry, or the pharmaceutical companies are bad people. Not at all, that is not what we’re trying to say. There are a lot of good people that are working in the medical industry, the cancer industry and for those at alphabet agencies, even the FDA. We’re not criticizing everybody that works for those agencies. What we are saying in this documentary, and we’re trying to communicate this fact, is that the entire medical system has been hijacked. If a plane is hijacked it is not the pilot’s fault that it’s hijacked. In the same manner, the fact that the medical industry has been hijacked is not your doctor’s fault that that’s happened.
The fact that the pharmaceutical companies, their sole purpose is to make money. That’s not the fault of any person that works for the pharmaceutical companies. The sales reps and other people that work for those companies, it’s not their fault. We want to be clear that we communicate that. The problem is that the system is broken. Money is driving the decisions of the people that are the leaders in those industries and not the health of the people that take their products. The number one goal, for big pharmaceutical companies at least, is shareholder profits.
They are publicly traded companies and the bottom line is their bottom line. Over the course of our travels, we were privileged to meet a couple of people that had previously worked for pharmaceutical companies. But once they realized that the number one driving force behind those decisions in Big Pharma is making money and not necessarily getting people healthy, both of them got out, to their credit. Dr. Subrata Chakravarty: I would hear a lot in our meetings and the town hall meetings that it was all about making the shareholders happy. And I’m like, “You know what? I don’t want to make the shareholders happy. That’s not the point of what we are doing. We want to be able to solve bigger problems than to see how much money goes into the shareholders’ pockets.” Tara Mann: In 2011, I just, kind of by chance, found a documentary and the title caught my eye.
It was called Dying to Have Known. It was one of the documentaries about the Gerson Therapy. I remember watching it. It was almost staged when I was watching the video. First, it was, “What in the world are they talking about?” They were talking about people that had late-stage cancer and they had somewhere to go and they were surviving. And I’m like, “I have never heard of this.” So I keep watching and, as a pharmaceutical representative, the doctors teach us very well that we practice evidence-based medicine.
Ty: Right. Tara Mann: Evidence-based medicine. So I’m watching it and I’m thinking, “This all sounds really good, but I wonder what kind of evidence they have.” So they switched to the physician and, I believe it’s China that is doing the Gerson Therapy, and I just remember him sitting in front of this huge filing cabinet. And the person that was interviewing him told him, “Just pick files.” And he just started opening these drawers of all these files of patients, all this evidence. All this evidence. So I’m going, “Wow. How is this possible, there is evidence?” Then the documentary goes on to talk about Max Gerson, the way that the therapies were suppressed. And that—I remember sitting up on the couch, on the edge of the couch like… You know, it was like the band-aid being ripped off, that moment of just disbelief.
My whole life. My mother’s a nurse. I mean, we grew up at the doctor’s office and at the nursing home. I had no idea. I worked in a hospital, I was a phlebotomist. I worked in a lab. My whole life was medicine. And so it was just shocking in a really impactful way, immediately. Immediately it changed my life. So I wanted to research, but I really thought that my research would disprove it. I thought, “This is really awesome, but it’s hard to believe.” So I started researching and I felt really strange. I felt like I was alone and I’d go to work every day in this industry and I’m thinking, “Do they know this? Do they know what I know?” Ty: Now to her credit, Tara Mann used to make a ton of money working for big pharmaceutical companies. But once she realized that they weren’t healing people, that they were actually harming people, she got out. And then she and her husband Steve began a nonprofit called Cancer Crackdown. That’s one of the charities that we at The Truth About Cancer are happy to donate to.
Tara just mentioned the Gerson Therapy. We will learn a lot more about the Gerson Therapy in Episode Eight so be sure that you tune in for that one. But in the meantime, we are about to hear of some telling quotes from doctors about the absurdity and the arrogance of trying to force treatments on people against their will. Dr. Gaston Cornu-Labat: If I tell you, “You have to do this,” which is very typical of conventional medicine, “You have to do this.” There is a degree of arrogance in that statement. “This is what you need.” Given the complexity of the human experience, for me to presume that I know what you need, that is a tremendous arrogance. That’s common in medicine, it’s very common.
“This is what you need to do, and if you don’t do it, of course, I’ll force you. I’ll have somebody force you.” And that happens, we know that. We know that when somebody doesn’t choose for their kids the exact path, we’ll have somebody enforcing that so that they choose that because that’s what they need. Oh my God, what arrogance. What a humongous arrogance. Mike Adams: It was best called by John Rappaport, a “scientific totalitarianism.” I think it’s a great term for it. Some people call it “medical fascism.” It means that the so-called science, which is really just corporate driven fraudulent science, but the so-called science-driven medicine is being forced upon you now in absolute violation of the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, which says that the patient must be given the choice.
The patient must be informed. They talk about informed consent. This is supposed to be a pillar of the ethical practice of medicine in the United States of America and really all around the world. That is now being stripped away. Parents are being told, “You must submit your children to these interventions whether you like it or not.” That’s a violation at every level, of human rights, of human dignity, of parental rights. Chris Wark: Parents need to know and they need to prepare because if you are in a situation as a parent and your child is diagnosed and you don’t want them to have chemotherapy, you need to prepare to run. Because if not, they are going to come to take your kids. Ty: Was Chris Wark exaggerating? Will the government really come and take your children? Jay Matthews: I’m a pharmacist by my profession, so I have been practicing now for about 20 years. When my daughter was diagnosed about three years ago, we decided the whole treatment was just huge and barbaric and the options were just very limited.
I think I ran that by you at that time. The prognosis was less than 20 percent, amputation was almost definite. When the swelling happened, that was mistake number one. We went to the emergency room. At that point, I thought, “Well, look, if they didn’t have significant successes with that…” And I thought that from an ethical standpoint if you don’t have very much you shouldn’t be doing that much. That’s what I thought. I didn’t think that they would pursue such an aggressive means to get it. At that point, the doctor was – again, depending on who you get – we had a physician that was very stubborn and thinks that he has all the answers, didn’t know anything about what we were approaching.
Ty: They kept Selena. Jay Matthews: Selena. They had armed guards at that point because they knew where my mind was at. Ty: They had armed guards in the room. Jay Matthews: In the room. They knew where my mind was at because my mind was to take her back to the facility of my choice. And a facility that would give her a chance at having some sort of a normal life. They came with their lawyers and they said, “If you don’t sign the consent, we’re going to take custody of the child. You’re going to lose custody of the child.” Ultimately, the judge said, “You’re not an expert, he is.” The oncologist, he’s the expert. There’s nothing he can do and the custody was given to the state. Ty: So they took custody of Selena. Jay Matthews: Correct. And then they started aggressive chemotherapy at that point. This is documented. They knew that, but they continued with the chemo. And I think that any adult would have been just saying, “Hey, look.
My arm’s deteriorating, every dose you give my arm is opening up. It’s just opening up and the wound is getting bigger.” I pleaded with the physician. I had no way of even getting second opinions at that point because the State’s got custody. Nor can I go to her physician and say, “This is wrong, you’ve got to take a look at it.” Because they wouldn’t approach us because we don’t have custody. “You’re not the legal custodian.” Ty: You don’t have custody of your own child. Jay Matthews: Correct. Ty: The State of Illinois did. Jay Matthews: The State of Illinois. So I pleaded with him.
I said, “The arm’s not going to stand it. It’s not going to make it.” That's all I could do. And every time, a bunch of about eight white coats come into the room, look at her wound getting bigger and bigger with every dose. As much as I pleaded with them, as much as they saw. The wound got so big, got infected with MRSA. They didn’t need all these cultures at that point. And the wound, if you see it, it’s horrific. It’s so graphic you will not believe that’s a human arm, the way that it deteriorated over time. It was just incredible. It was graphic for her. That’s post-traumatic stress for her. For us certainly, it is. Then, in the end, an amputation was required. After that point, we still didn’t have custody after the amputation for another six months.
We have custody of her now. We have custody now. We had the best insurance and I think, really, it’s the worst thing you can have. We had the best insurance. To have the best insurance means every drug that is covered will be used and was used. Every drug that wasn’t covered… I mean, he would have used Avastin. Avastin is another $400,000 drug. He would have used it if it was covered, but ultimately I was in a position where I could have dropped her from my insurance. The State didn’t pay for it. All this $million was paid out to the hospitals. Ty: $million.
Jay Matthews: Yes, $million and it was all paid from my insurance. Todd Jones: It’s something where everything just blurs. Your energy leaves your body, you’re in shock. It’s traumatic and you just look at each other and you don’t know what to say. I called my boss. I was supposed to be at a trade show and I was bawling. I said, “Man, we just got some bad news.” But after the first month, and I shared this with you too, we made a decision that we wanted to—since the cancer was so far down and in remission as they say, and they told us themselves.
That we were like, “Okay. You know what? Thank you for your business. We’re good now. We’re going to go ahead and build her up naturally now that cancer and half of her system have been “chemoed,” chemically cleansed, we’re going to go in and put in the natural good stuff now and see how we can get her to respond there.” Well, the hospital didn’t like that. When that happened, it wasn’t three days later and there was that very, very, very loud aggressive knock at our door. I’m thinking, “That doesn’t sound like anybody I know. Nobody knocks like that.” It almost sounded like a boot. So I went to the door and it was the Office of Child Services and they came and they said, “Look, the hospital called. You have taken your child out of treatment and you need to bring your child right back to treatment.” I’m like, “Well, we’re finished with that treatment.
We’re just going to continue on with another treatment.” Right? I’m the parent. I even looked up the Alaska statutes. Parents have a legal right to decide how their children get treated. What I didn’t know is it doesn’t matter what the statutes say, and the administrative truth about that is that the child is a ward of the State. Cassandra Callender: The Department of Children and Families was called because we were wasting time according to the doctors. They wanted me in for chemotherapy a week after my biopsy was done at Hartford and they came in and they took me because they said that I had to get the chemo.
Ty: What do you mean when you say, “they took you?” Cassandra Callender: They came into my house in October around Halloween and they said that I had to go with them. Ty: And who is “they?” Cassandra Callender: The DCF workers. Ty: Okay. They actually came into your home and took you from— Cassandra Callender: Yes. They had about 12 police squad cars surrounding my house and the block and they basically just came into my house and said, “We have to go.” My mom wasn’t even home. I was hiding in my closet upstairs because I had no idea what was going on. Ty: Were you the only one at the house? Cassandra Callender: Yes. I called my mom crying and she came home immediately to police and DCF workers surrounding our house. After about two weeks of being in the hospital, going through courts and judges, they got the order that they could force me to do the chemotherapy. At that point, I was in the hospital. I couldn’t leave my room. There was a guard sitting outside of my door.
I couldn’t use my phone. I couldn’t contact my mom. Basically, it came down to one morning they came in and they strapped me to the bed and they sedated me for surgery. Ty: Really? Cassandra Callender: Yes, because you have to have a port to have chemotherapy, which is why I have a scar. Ty: And you didn’t want a port. Cassandra Callender: No, because I didn’t want the chemo and the idea of having an object inside of me grossed me out and so they came in to insert an IV and I said, “No.” So they had to have the officers and the security guards and the staff come in. And they brought in a bed that had straps and they had to tie me down by my wrists and my ankles.
And a woman came in and they put a needle in my neck to knock me out and the next thing I knew I woke up and I was in the recovery room. Dr. Rashid Buttar: Well, I would like to know how is that any different from Nazi Germany, when people were put into concentration camps and experimented on or forced to do certain things? I don’t know what the difference is. Because we live in the United States, the land of the free, the home of the brave, so that makes it different? It’s amazing to me that the entire population of the United States doesn’t know about this and the reason they don’t know about it because it has been hushed up by the media.
Nobody wants to talk about it. But this is no different than what was done in Germany or when people are basically raped and pillaged. To me, that’s the same thing. Mike Adams: This is unacceptable. This is incompatible with a free society. And frankly, the doctors that engage in that kind of activity and the hospital staff that strap people down and force chemotherapy into these children, they should be arrested.
They should go to jail just like this other oncology doctor who’s serving 50 or 45 years in prison now. Dr. Rashid Buttar: When people allow a government to dictate the foods they put in their mouth and the medicines they take into their bodies, their souls will soon be in the same sorry state as those who are ruled by tyranny. As much as I would like to take credit for that phrase, that was uttered by Thomas Jefferson over 250 years ago. Dr. Matthias Rath: We talked about concentration camps.
They are surrounded by a fence. If someone tries to escape, the fences of the modern concentration camp, the ones that confine the cancer patient within the perimeter of conventional thinking, of chemotherapy thinking, they are being haunted. How many court cases have been filed around the world for withdrawing custody of parents who went into natural health as opposed to staying within the confines, within the fences, of conventional chemotherapy treatments? It’s nothing else. The dimension of a child dying in a concentration camp or dying from leukemia that is being intoxicated by chemotherapy as opposed to choosing natural paths is the same. The parents are losing a child. The family is losing their future. That’s the deeper dimension of what we’re talking about.
That the same interest groups that have proven again and again in the past, namely the pharmaceutical investment business, how ruthless they are, are still around trying to fool us. Trying to tell us, “Well, believe us.” Why should we? If we don’t have the courage to liberate ourselves, then we will not make progress among all diseases. The one disease that the status quo, meaning the pharmaceutical, the investment business, needs most to continue its business, to stabilize, to cement its system… is cancer. They can afford to allow, let’s say, advances in osteoporosis that decrease the number of bone fractures without major damage to its future existence. They can allow progress in this and that disease to mask their principal business. But they cannot allow, they cannot allow cancer to disappear or be identified as a disease that can be regulated or prevented. Long ago, they have initiated what Dr. Niedzwiecki mentioned, the fact of fear. In fact, it’s more than that. It’s a psychological warfare on humanity that the pharmaceutical industry is leading with the tool of cancer. Keeping cancer as a death verdict is a platform, is a precondition, for this entire investment industry to continue.
Ty: Big Pharma may need this cancer investment industry to continue so that the money keeps flowing in, but our goal with The Truth About Cancer is exactly the opposite. We want to eradicate cancer once and for all. That’s why we’ve shared these truths with you today. Maybe they’ve been a little bit difficult to believe, but they are the truth. Has your perspective changed on this? I hope that it has because the perspective that most people have when they hear “cancer” is that cancer is a death sentence and our message is exactly the opposite. Cancer is not a death sentence. There’s always hope. Pamela Kelsey: My name is Pamela Kelsey. I was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas in 1975. I was told that I had a year and a half to live, at the most. If I did chemotherapy, possibly chemotherapy, radiology, the different treatments that conventional medicine has.
I chose not to do that after finding out about the clinic in Mexico and I chose to go on their regimen. I thought my life was over, but it was too soon to be over. I was only 34 years old and my husband and I have started a business called “Leading Estates of the World.” We traveled the world. We saw the most beautiful properties all over the world and I enjoyed the business very much. I wrote and designed for the magazine.
We were in a very happy relationship and I just wanted a solution. I was always proactive to try to—if there’s a problem, I’m going to fix it. So a friend of mine— I had this horrible pain, just terrible, terrible pain. I was in bed, off and on, for about a year with low blood sugar, abdominal pain and then it got worse and worse to the point where I felt like I had a knife through the middle of my chest and out my back. So a friend said, “I know a friend who was cured. She had inoperable cancer of the colon and she went to a clinic in Mexico and she’s five years clear of cancer.” So my husband and I didn’t waste any time. We came right down to Mexico and we had the— We went through the physical.
And I was still very nervous about everything, but we talked to patients down here. There must have been 40 patients down here with similar stories. So I began to gain hope and confidence that this was something that would really work. So I took the medicine home, the tonic, and the supplements. I was very diligent, religiously so, about sticking to the diet, doing everything the doctors told me. And within a year – well they told me that within three months I would start to feel better – and so it was almost three months to the day that I was able to start not having so much pain. My migraine headaches were not so frequent, not so intense. And I gradually stopped—I gradually, month by month stopped having the pain in my abdomen. I could start digesting my food and I got better. And within a year I was clear of cancer of the pancreas. It was just so amazing because I knew that very few people survive cancer of the pancreas. Over the years, of course, since then I don’t know of anyone that has survived as long as I have. And then, we had another episode in our life because, in 2011, I came to the clinic.
I had been under a great deal of stress. We had had a lot of situations that were challenging. So I came to the clinic for a physical and I didn’t expect anything bad, but I just wanted to come and have the doctor help me with some of the stresses. I wasn’t reacting very well to stress. So we went to St. John’s Hospital. They did a CT scan and they detected lesions in the liver up to centimeters. They were hypoechoic, and they said so liver neoplasm cannot be excluded.
That meant that – as I was told – that the density of the tissue was so dense that that’s what is normally from cancer. I immediately came down to the clinic then and had another CAT scan and that confirmed that I did have cancer. I had 22 focal lesions on the liver and they put me on the treatment. I felt like I had been totally blindsided because I had been free for decades of cancer and here I had this terrible diagnosis. It was so surprising to me because the pancreatic cancer was much more painful. This was very subtle. It was just this full feeling in my body and a little bit of pain. They asked me to come back in three months. I couldn’t wait three months. I was wanting to come back sooner and see what was happening. So I came back in two and a half months and all but three of the lesions were gone. It was an unbelievable feeling. It was just so unbelievable that here 50 percent, they said, of my liver has been affected by all the lesions on the liver.
So 50 percent of my liver was bad and had cancer and here I had only three small spots remaining and then the next physical shortly after that showed that there was no more cancer. I’m the longest, to my knowledge, the longest living cancer survivor of the pancreas and I’m alive and well 40 years later. The doctors have confirmed that there is no longer any trace of cancer in my body.
And I’m just radiant with happiness because I know that this treatment work and I know that had I done the conventional treatment I wouldn’t have lived. Pamela Kelsey: Bob and I just owe my life to you and to your sister. And yet you’ve carried on. It was her life work, she was totally devoted. She moved from Dallas to here and went through—she could have had a totally different life, but she was so committed. Ty: Here’s a summary of what you’ve come to understand during this episode. You’ve seen the heartbreaking truth behind why cancer is so rapidly spreading. And why the false cures have been perpetuated. I hope this side of the history equation has helped you understand the foundation of why things are the way they are. You’ve seen the shocking decisions concerning the Nuremberg Trials, where the vilest of crimes were praised, and that evil intent opened a floodgate of deception that led to the creation of a system that sought not to eradicate disease, but rather amplify it through disseminating false solutions for the sake of perpetual monetary gain.
You’ve seen the doctors who, rather than being praised or rewarded for their heroic deeds in healing their patients, have been persecuted, slandered, threatened, and, in some cases, have even had their patient records destroyed, their practice shut down, they’ve been imprisoned, even run out of a country, and have had their families undergo harassment and heartache for their loyalty to the cause. You’ve seen the children that have been forced to chemotherapy against their wishes and their parent's wishes, regardless of their level of expertise or the effectiveness of their desired natural, proven protocol.
You’ve seen the proof that corruption, greed, coercion, deception, and fear have been tools employed to create a system that leaves people confused and afraid, rather than empowered. The great news today is that we have won the battle in your life as you have discovered the truth. And as it’s said, “The truth will set you free.” I’m so happy that you’ve experienced this and that through you, your loved ones too will know the truth about cancer. I know you felt the hope and courage in the stories of the survivors that have recovered taking a natural approach, achieving feats unheard of by conventional methods of treatment. Isn’t it wonderful to see real-life proof? It warms my heart to see lives restored. I hope that you’ve enjoyed learning these things.
And while they may be difficult to hear, it does bring us to the central truth that cancer, is in fact, NOT a death sentence. In light of this truth that we have established, you can give yourself one of the greatest gifts at this moment and that is the peace that results when you are free from fear. You do not have to live in fear. You can prevent and beat cancer, 100 percent naturally. Ty: Wow! That’s a lot of information that we covered tonight. I hope you’ve learned a lot from it. I know that I actually learned a lot traveling and getting this information for you. This information, these truths, that we’ve shared tonight are fundamental in the rest of our journey these next eight days. I can’t wait for the next episode, folks. We’re going to travel all the way down to Australia and we’re going to learn from a practitioner and a couple of cancer survivors what they have done to treat cancer naturally.
We’re going to learn about essential oils and the role that they play, not only in preventing but also in treating cancer. We’re going to also discover some interesting knowledge about hormones and the role that they play in diagnosis and prevention and even treatment of cancer. But the biggie in the next episode is breast cancer. This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and there are a lot of lies and deceptions that are associated with treatment and diagnosing breast cancer. There’s a lot of truths that are not commonly known. We’re going to discover all of those in the next episode. I’m really pumped about it and I hope that you join us there. I thank you for watching tonight’s episode and I can’t wait to see you for the next one.
In the meantime, get some rest and we’ll see you tomorrow. Thanks for tuning in tonight. God bless all of you. Dr. Matthias Rath: It's extremely important to state the truth. To fight for the truth. This is why we appreciate you coming to us and interviewing us at length on this process. Because it is a courageous thing that you are doing Ty. And not just with us, but with opening up this curtain of deception and lies about cancer and, for that matter, other diseases. And giving the people of America and the world a chance to see through that maze of deception and make their own choice. I think you must be complimented. I'm complimenting you for that.
Tina Baird: Thank you to Ty and Chris and Bill Henderson. I've watched all of Ty's documentary. The whole entire thing. Several times. And I continue to watch some of his excerpts on Facebook. He'll bring some of those out every once in a while. Doctor Gonzalez. A big thank you to each and every one of those doctors who participated because they truly saved my life. And I think Dr. Buttar definitely is one of those. This documentary– If I didn't have that I wouldn't think I had another option.
And so, it's just a huge thank you. Thank you for doing what they're doing. Dr. Robert Scott Bell: I’m most grateful not only for participating in this Global Quest but that you all have been able to watch a great man. A tremendous healer who has passed from this plane much too soon. Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, a good friend, a dear friend of mine. His legacy of healing, of empowering you to heal, to bring in that power to heal back where it belongs with you, will continue long after. But I continue every day that I breathe and speak and communicate through radio and through this Global Quest to acknowledge the great works of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez and what he brought to us all. And a passion and a dedication to really learn and to teach about nutritional ways to prevent and reverse cancer, detoxification protocols. And I hope that he has inspired you as he has inspired me to continue to learn and never stop learning and never stop helping and never stop working to help others who are genuinely in need.
This is why we do what we do and this is why the Global Quest is also greatly honoring and greatly appreciative of all the efforts of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez. And his works will not perish because of this and because of what you are doing and watching and supporting this Global Quest. Thank you, Dr. Nick. We love you. We appreciate you. Charlene Bollinger: He supported us from the very beginning and it means so much to have had his support and the world is just missing a great star and, of course, heaven’s gain, our loss.
What did you think of this first show in the series? Did you learn something new? Are you excited to see the next eight episodes? Do you think your friends and your family would enjoy watching it as well? Then help us spread the word by sharing this page on Facebook and on Twitter and on all the other social media sites by clicking the links below. Your support will make a huge difference in the number of people that we reach and ultimately in the number of lives that we save. Thanks for watching.