Article 15912 of alt.conspiracy:
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,sci.med,sci.research,alt.society.civil-liberty
Path: cbnewsl!jad
From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part II, CHEMOTHERAPY: Deadly Treatment Yields Lively Profits
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: North America
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 12:05:19 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep23.120519.21337@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Keywords: the politics and the profits of the cancer industry
Lines: 140


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording 
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       (212) 279-0707

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
RALPH MOSS:
A patent gives a seventeen-year legal monopoly to the owner of that
piece of paper which means that you can basically charge whatever
the market will bear. And we've seen the enormous rip-off that's
come with AZT, which was a patent granted to Burroughs-Welcom by
the National Cancer Institute after the drug had already been
discovered, at the taxpayers' expense. And we've seen other drugs
and procedures that have been selling for ten and twenty and thirty
thousand dollars.

Natural substances, like vitamins and minerals and herbs .....sure,
there's some money to be made in them, but it's a penny to the dollar
compared to the patented substances. You can't patent a vitamin.
You can't patent an herb. So there's a STRONG economic incentive to
go the route of the synthetic. 

Another reason -- a very important one -- is professionalism.
People who are doctors and scientists .... their entire lives are
tied up with their status as professionals. Now, a toxic drug
requires the existence of complicated medical equipment -- of high
technology, of people who are experts in the use of these substances.
Some of these drugs, for instance, are so poisonous that they take
the patient to what the doctors call "the vital frontier" -- in
other words, to the point of death. Methyltrexate, for instance, is
sometimes given in such high doses that it literally KILLS the
person, and you have to use a vitamin, citrovorum rescue factor, to
bring the person back from the land of the dead and back into the
land of the living. These are the kinds of treatments that we're
talking about.

We've seen when The Establishment (and we can talk about that some
more) .... when The Cancer Establishment turns its hand towards the
more natural treatments, it gravitates towards the things that are
the most toxic; for instance, high doses of interferon, and
especially, of interleukin-2 with activated killer cells. These
treatments, although they are ostensibly natural, are more toxic
than a lot of forms of chemotherapy. Again, you need whole hospitals
to be devoted to this [kind oftreatment]. You need people with
incredible skills and credentials and SALARIES, and so forth to do it.
The drugs, which are pharmaceuticals, but are relatively less toxic
are not used because THEY would put the focus of cancer care back
into the hands of the primary physician. And this is something that,
in our era of specialization, the experts don't want to do. So you
see, everything drives towards the creation of this very inhumane
high-tech, highly EXPENSIVE, alienated form of medical treatment
for cancer, and away from the self-help movement, the preventive
movement, the movement towards having primary care physicians take
care of cancer patients -- away from having treatments that would
be made available to the poor people in the world, who are the
majority, in countries where high-tech treatments for cancer and
AIDS are simply just a dream.

So, I think we're confronting more than just evil people. We're
confronting a whole Establishment. And part of that Establishment
is, of course, the Media. I was listening before to Ed Herman, and
I think that his analysis and Noam Chomsky's analyses are brilliant.
And this analysis applies to the cancer field as well as to the
field of foreign affairs.

GARY NULL:
Let's go a little deeper -- if you would, please, Ralph -- into the
cancer insiders, the peer review system, the fact that Linus Pauling
[winner of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry and biology], for
over fifteen years was not able to get a single penny to study the
cause and effect between vitamin C (and other anti-oxidants) and
both the prevention and treatment of any cancers. And yet, when it
was finally authorized .... and generally, because there had been a
loosening of the dogma against vitamin C around 1989 .... several
studies, in fact, a hundred and sixty-two studies on cancer
prevention or treatment (alone) with vitamin C were done. And a
hundred and forty-one of those one hundred and sixty-two studies
showed very positive effects -- statistically significant for all
types and sites of cancer -- in both the prevention and treatment.
Now when you realize that a hundred and forty-one positive studies
.... and those were not even necessarily done at high doses, and
certainly not with protocols that Linus Pauling, you or I would
suggest. We would suggest a much more comprehensive protocol, and
not just a single substance. But they were still getting positive
results with relatively low doses, with single substances. You'd
think:  By golly, twelve years, fifteen years WASTED because of
some policy or some agenda that kept this from being funded. And
look at all the waste in funding projects that are the 16,000th
time that a particular virus, even a retrovirus was explored for
cancer.

RALPH MOSS:
Right.

GARY NULL:
Give us an in-depth look at the cancer research community, the peer
review system, the difficulty in publishing dissenting views within
the cancer/AIDS Establishment.  And for our purposes, we're going
to use cancer and AIDS virtually interchangeably at the level of
research and politics of funding.

RALPH MOSS:
Absolutely.  Well, as you know, my involvement with the cancer
field came about because I saw the cover-up of positive experiments
in alternative therapies at Memorial Sloan Kettering. And I blew
the whistle on that in 1977. And I was fired for "failing to carry
out my most basic job responsibilities," as they put it in the New
York Times. What is really scary is that we fight very hard for the
fair testing of alternative methods in cancer. And yet, we know,
not only from cancer, but from many other things that have gone on
with the AIDS virus, and so forth, that scientists can, and
sometimes do commit fraud. And certainly they are often biased in
their own research. This MYTH of the objective scientist really
hinders the understanding of the truth. Scientists should be
objective, but scientists are people, like other people, and they
have their biases. And they are also capable of committing fraud.
                        (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 

        Someone close to you may now, or in the future, be fighting
        for their life against cancer, the dreaded scourge of modern
        societies. They will then need to exercise their RIGHT to
        explore the untold side of the cancer story -- the side which 
        the drug INDUSTRY, the medical INDUSTRY and the mass-media
        INDUSTRY would not want cancer victims to know about.
        Please post the articles of this series to other bulletin 
        boards, as well as posting hardcopies in public places,  
        both on and off campus.
        
        And ask your librarian to borrow for you (through the
        nationwide inter-library loan network) THIRD OPINION, by
        John Fink, 1992 edition, a directory of cancer treatment
        clinics throughout the world, many of which do not treat
        cancer by poisoning the patient.

            John DiNardo


