Radiation therapy quotes (original) (raw)

Radiation therapy quotes [back] Radiation therapy

"Among 41,109 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1935 and 1982 in Connecticut, 3,984 developed a second cancer, whereas 2,426 were expected. Women treated with radiation were at higher risk of developing a second breast neoplasm." � E B Harvey, "Second Breast Cancer," National Cancer Institute Monograph, 1995, 68: 99-112

"We also found that cancer survivors had particularly high risks of developing a second cancer that we know to be radiation-sensitive. These include breast, colon, lung, thyroid and bladder cancers," he said. � Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters, Sept 15, 2010.Chemo:

The radioactive radiation caused by the accident in Chernobyl will indiscriminately destroy body cells, but particularly the primitive cells and the bone marrow cells because they naturally have the greatest dividing rate. If the bone marrow, where the blood is made, gets damaged, and the body manages to heal, then we see leukemia which, in principle, is the same as the leukemia in the healing phase after bone cancer. The DHS for bone cancer is �I am worthless�. To be rigorous, one must say that the blood symptoms of leukemia are unspecific, not only in cancer, but in every healing of the bone marrow. The fact that hardly a single patient has survived leukemia is caused by the ignorance of doctors who are administering chemo and/or radiation therapy until the existent bone marrow is exhausted. It is exactly the opposite of what is needed. In short, radiation is bad; it kills cells, but it does not create cancer; cancer can only be brought on in the brain through a conflict shock (DHS). [1992 Interview] Questions and Answers by Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer

In those who�ve had pelvic radiation, 90 per cent of patients report a permanent change in bowel habits afterwards, and 30 per cent have problems with the bladder, often causing urine to leak. ....Symptoms can appear many years after treatment, because in some people the radiotherapy continues to damage tissue long after it has finished.... �After a few months, I told the hospital I was having problems with diarrhoea, and was told it would improve. It did, slightly, but I was still going to the loo about 12 times a day. ...He says one in ten patients will develop chronic pain, with one in five suffering faecal incontinence. �Some will have to go to the loo up to 30 times a day, and it carries on getting worse, affecting their quality of life, their sex life, everything.� Up to one-third of patients will have long-term problems with urination.....�The chemotherapy people said it was the radiotherapy to blame, and the radiotherapy people told me it was the chemotherapy. [2013 Feb] Cancer cure that can leave you a prisoner in your home

My clinical experience is that in America, when people die from cancer, they are NOT actually dying from cancer, but instead, they are dying from the medical TREATMENT itself. They are dying from the chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. AGAIN: They are NOT dying from the cancer�they are being killed by the medical doctors and their medical treatment! ---Richard Shulze, N.D., M.H.

"The machinery looks good, the technology seems nice, the stainless steel is shiny, everything smells like isopropyl alchohol; I mean they are the greatest salesmen in the world. We're going to go look back at this century and we're going to laugh eventually, but we'll cry first. This is one of the most barbaric periods. It's going to be called the Dark Ages of Medicine."----Dr Shulze(The Sam Biser Herbal Video Collection p198)

"I had a brain cancer specialist sit in my living room and tell me that he would never take radiation if he had a brain tumor. And I asked him, 'but, do you send people for radiation?' and he said, of course. 'I'd be drummed out of the hospital if I didn't."---Ralph Moss

[2011 April] Radiation exposure chart admits cancer radiotherapy delivers fatal dose to patients Just in case you're not following all this, what we're seeing here is that 10,000 mSv is a fatal dose. The 20,000 mSv line was removed from the chart between versions 1.0 and 1.35. Meanwhile, the cancer industry is routinely using 60,000 mSv focused on the head and neck as a way to "prevent" cancer!
Are you starting to see how huge this cancer radiotherapy scam really is? Think about it: If exposure to just 100 mSv can actually cause cancer, then how can exposure to 60,000 mSv somehow "cure" it?
Not surprisingly, the cancer industry's lies fall apart when you look at the science. No wonder the industry has to work so hard to keep people misinformed. If cancer patients knew they were receiving literally 60,000% higher radiation doses (that's 60,000 mSv versus 100 mSv) than the level necessary to significantly increase the risk of cancer, they probably wouldn't sign up for more "treatments."

[2009 Nov]Risks of Mammography: Hidden Role of the American Cancer Society Five radiologists have served as presidents of the American Cancer Society (ACS). In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. This bias hypes mammography, which Dr. Epstein and Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D. of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine emphasize is an avoidable cause of breast cancer.
"The mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds," they warn. "DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting ACS literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organization, and doctors; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services."
In virtually all its actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry. Meanwhile, it ignores or attacks breast self examination (BSE), following training by expert nurses or clinicians, which is the safe and effective alternative, say Drs. Epstein and Bertell.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Don Croft (along with Alejandro) for the first time, after following his posts for 8 years. I found him to be polite, unassuming and full of good humor. He is a 'regular guy' who immediately puts you at ease. If you've studied his writing, you'll know that the most significant assertion he's ever made is: don't take MY word for it, try it yourself and see. So, to those of you who've had the gumption or openmindedness to try gifting a little orgonite and realize that it works, a heartfelt THANKS for making the world a better place.
~Chaz
P.S.
An example of confirmation I experienced a few weeks ago: A friend of mine who has mouth cancer (won't use the zapper -geesh!) asked me to take him to the radiation clinic for treatment. We arrived and, before he headed upstairs, said it would only take about half an hour.
I sat down to read and, after about five minutes, noticed the words began to blur. My eyesight is good and I was wearing my HP, but just in case, I went out to the car to get my SP and came back in. I switched it on and did a little blasting of the general area. Moments later, my friend came back down the stairs. "Sorry, Chaz, it's going to be another hour or so. Three out of four of the radiation machines just went on the blink." Oops. 'Don Croft is a Complete Bozo and Fraud!'

These "proven" cancer treatments are themselves largely unproven. The standard of proof for therapeutic efficacy is in fact a double standard. Surgery was grandfathered in as standard practice early in the twentieth century without randomized, double-blind clinical trials, which only became widespread in the 1960s with the advent of chemotherapy. Its dangers and limitations have since been only superficially acknowledged or studied, and little is known about its efficacy in relation to a baseline marker of no treatment.
Like surgery, radiation therapy was grandfathered in without rigorous testing. Radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic. In the few tests comparing radiation treatment against no treatment, according to Jones, "Most of the time, it makes not the slightest difference if the machine is turned on or not." Jones went even further, saying, "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer." Radiation is often combined with surgery despite the fact that tests have generally shown it made no apparent favorable difference. A recent study with patients with the most common form of lung cancer found that postoperative radiation therapy, which is routinely given, actually raises the relative risk of death by 21 percent, with its most detrimental effects on those in the early stages of illness. Nevertheless, radiation is used on about half of cancer patients. When Healing Becomes a Crime --Kenny Ausubel

"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.

"Up to 10% of childhood cancers are caused by radiological examination during pregnancy."---(Prof. R. Doll, Nature, Vol. 265, 1977, page 589.)

The fact that breast irradiation increases the risk of heart disease is not a new finding. Starting in the late 1960s, it became known that, after receiving adjuvant radiation to prevent breast cancer recurrence, more women than expected were dying of heart disease, sometimes decades after their initial surgery. It took brilliant medical detective work to prove that this apparently successful use of radiation therapy was also the cause of many cardiac deaths (Fajardo 2001). So many women were dying of the long-term adverse effects, in fact, that it more or less counterbalanced any survival benefit from the treatment itself.
Radiation is a classic two-edged sword. It does substantially reduce the risk of recurrences of breast cancer in the irradiated field. But this comes at the price of an increased risk of damage to the heart, especially when the internal mammary lymph node chains are irradiated or when the patient is a smoker. Patients and their physicians need to carefully weigh benefits and risks before agreeing to this or any other potentially toxic treatment.[2007]Big Blow to Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer by Ralph W. Moss, PhD

[1995 BMJ] Brachial plexus neuropathy after radiotherapy for breast cancer The committee of RAGE received more than 1000 letters after publicity surrounding litigation and formed an action group with 800 members. Of 556 women who thought they had sustained nerve damage the college contacted those who had been treated at 15 representative centres......While radiotherapy has an important effect in preventing local recurrence and thus improving quality of life, a recent overview shows no significant impact on 10 year survival. Indeed, a 5% reduction in deaths from breast cancer seems to be counterbalanced by an increase in deaths from other causes.

[March 2008] OVERCOMING THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF RADIATION TREATMENT FOR CANCER Ralph Moss the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) increasingly approves cancer drugs without requiring that they be shown to prolong life. Indeed, FDA's approval standards have now become so lenient that in most instances the manufacturer of a drug only has to demonstrate that in clinical trials the drug performs better than a placebo in order to be confident of a smooth passage through the approval process. .......some kinds of cancer treatment have become the standard of care without ever having been evaluated in clinical trials. Many forms of radiation treatment, for example, have simply been "grandfathered in," - i.e., accepted by default largely on the basis of having been around for a long time.......in many instances the relative merits of different kinds of radiation treatment, the limits of its usefulness and the extent of its effectiveness have never been clearly established through clinical trials. This has led to a situation where on the one hand the treatment is almost universally available, yet on the other hand there is very little solid evidence comparing the effectiveness of radiation to various other treatment approaches.

[2008 Nov] Why won't our doctors face up to the dangers of radiotherapy? the lung lesions were diagnosed as a side-effect of the radiotherapy Richard had undergone for his cancer. However, his problems only got worse: a few weeks after a routine tooth extraction, the bone around the extraction started to crumble and become infected. Within months he had an open weeping wound, running from his lower cheek through his jaw and into his mouth. The diagnosis: bone necrosis as a direct result of radiotherapy damage to the jaw.
Around 4 to 5 per cent of all head and neck cancer patients suffer problems with swallowing or breathing, fistulas (open holes) in the jaw and gum, loss of taste and hearing.
But the problem is not unique to these cancers. Up to 10 per cent of breast cancer patients suffer radiation damage to their heart, lungs or the nerves to the arms (leading to loss of circulation and movement).
Every year, another 6,000 patients who've had pelvic radiotherapy treatment for conditions such as bowel cancer suffer long-term damage (including incontinence). A thousand of these patients go on to suffer even worse problems, such as intestinal failure or heavy bleeding.
Alan, from Christchurch, Dorset, has suffered unimaginable pain. He has also suffered the indignity of urine leaking out through his back passage after he developed an internal fistula 12cm long, running from the top of his bladder to what was left of his lower bowel.

Four years ago my ribs started to fracture, from doing nothing in particular, once I was draining water from a pan of potatoes and a rib fractured ! I have had 7 fractures in all. The hospital breast clinic gave me scans, xrays and tests and said I had osteopenia in that area, which is not quite osteoporosis. They said it is probably from the radium treatment I had. They would not answer anymore of my questions except to say that 'the machines were different in those days'. I am in pain everyday. Everything I do is painful. I am afraid to use my arm, but of course I have to. [2008 Nov] Why won't our doctors face up to the dangers of radiotherapy?

My Mum had a large number of intense radiotherapy sessions for the treatment of cervical cancer four years ago, and recently one of my close friends has received the same treatment schedule. Both have been left with weak bowels and low tolerance to food with any great quantity of fibre and have both been fobbed off by their treating consultants. Neither were told thatthis may have been a side effect - and my mum in particular was told by her consultant 'it's better to be double incontinent than dead' My friend was told something similar after she had pointed out that she was experiencing some difficulties in being out of the house for long periods of time...[2008 Nov]Why won't our doctors face up to the dangers of radiotherapy?