QUOTES FROM DR JULIAN WHITAKER, M.D. ABOUT CONVENTIONAL CANCER THERAPY

DR JULIAN WHITAKER, M.D.
http://www.drwhitaker.com/

We know that conventional therapy doesn’t work—if it did you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures we know don’t work, because there is no other choice.

The FDA, NCI and ACS, and the large treatment centres work to eliminate choice of cancer therapies, particulary better ones. They openly attack breakthroughs made by "mavericks", which they define as anyone outside their ranks. Folks, any serious study of how these entities work together to destroy hopeful approaches to cancer reveals a trail of corruption, conspiracy, dishonesty, and inhumanity that warrants desigantion of evil……..We continue to use them not because they work, but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated any other choice.

What I wouldn’t do if I had cancer

First, I would not even check in with a conventional oncologist, particulary not one from a prominent cancer institution. Their expertise is in implementing the erroneous paradigm that cancer must be purged from the body with toxic methods. This is, in my opinion, no more valuable than maps from the Flat Earth Society. When there is a paradigm shift---and we definitely are in the middle of one with cancer treatment---those sitting on the lofty perches of authority are the last to make the change, because they are guarding the paradigm about to be replaced. I don’t buy maps of a flat earth, and I wouldn’t go to the NCI or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Centre for cancer treatment.

What I Would Do.

I’d turn my back on 50 years of institutionalised expertise, because it follows the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine today or in any other discipline fits some paradigm. The paradigm I use for cancer is that it is a systemic problem in which the normal control mechanisms of your body are altered. Your immune system likely bears the largest burden for this control; thus, all techniques that enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.

"Conventional Medicine is locked into a dogma that believes that its way is the only way. Conventional doctors deny you have any alternatives to their drugs and surgeries. But you do have choices. And these enlightened treatments are far superior to the risky methods of modern medicine. . .which can be extremely dangerous to your well-being. . . . This enlightened new approach to health will lead contemporary medicine out of the Dark Ages of drugs and surgery, because it does work better. I know, because I use these alternative therapies every day in my medical practice. . . .Many of the patients I see are 'medical refugees' who have been abused and abandoned by conventional medicine. . . .The results we see are truly impressive, more so than with any drugs and conventional treatments they gave us in medical school. . . .The 'drugs or surgery only' approach that modern medicine uses to treat today's diseases is archaic."—Julian Whitaker, M.D.

I AGREE. ALEX

Low Dose Naltraxone Therapy

The following comes from The Compounder a newsletter by compounding pharmacist,
Larry Frieders.  I have found the info. on his site very interesting.

Dr. Julian Whitaker made a comment in his March 2007 newsletter
that reflects poorly on the way medicine is practiced today. He
was discussing 'Old Therapies, New Uses' when he writes, 'Most
disappointing, safe and effective therapies continue to be
ignored.'

To quote Dr. Whitaker, 'Today...LDN (low dose Naltrexone) is making inroads. It's not
because a drug company is advertising it on TV or paying for
research. Its patent ran out long ago, so there is no financial
incentive. Nor are many doctors prescribing it, since no drug
reps are spoon-feeding them info on it. But LDNs popularity has
steadily grown, driven by word of mouth from the many patients
whom it's helped.'

Naltrexone itself was approved by the FDA in 1984 in a 50mg dose for the purpose of helping heroin or opium addicts, by blocking the effect of such drugs. In technical terms, it is an opioid antagonist. By blocking opioid receptors, naltrexone also blocks the reception of the opioid hormones (endorphins) that our brain and adrenal glands produce - beta-endorphin and metenkephalin. Many body tissues have receptors for the endorphins, including virtually every cell of the body’s immune system.

In 1985, Dr. Bernard Bihari discovered the effects of a much smaller dose of naltrexone (approximately 3mg once a day) on the body’s immune system. He found that this low dose, taken at bedtime, was able to enhance a patient’s response to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Subsequently, Dr. Bihari found that patients in his practice with cancer (such as lymphoma or pancreatic cancer) could benefit from LDN. In addition, people who had autoimmune disease (such as lupus) often showed prompt control of disease activity while taking LDN.

How does LDN work?

According to Dr. Bihari’s information, the brief blockade of opioid (endorphin) receptors that is caused by taking LDN at bedtime each night is believed to produce a prolonged up-regulation of vital elements of the immune system by causing an increase in endorphin production. Normal volunteers who have taken LDN in this fashion have been found to have much higher levels of beta-endorphins circulating in their blood in the following days. It is believed that the endorphins act to increase natural killer cells and other healthy immune defenses against cancer.

What diseases has it been useful for?

Some diseases for which Dr. Bihari has described beneficial effects of LDN:

• HIV/AIDS Pancreatic Carcinoma
• Prostate Cancer Carcinoid
• Hodgkin’s Disease Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
• Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas Rheumatoid Arthritis; Lupus (SLE)
• Lymphocytic Leukemia Psoriasis
• Neuroblastoma Behcet’s Disease
• Colorectal Cancer Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Naltrexone has been used in experiments to block the effects of acupuncture to prove
that acupuncture stimulates the opioid system.  So the idea here is that if you
can block the opioid system just a little you can get the body to produce more endorphins
and enkephalins to compensate and this in turn has a powerful upregulating effect
on aspects of the immune system. That sounds good, and because the dosages are low
it has very little side effects.    Alex

Cancer Death Rate Drama

From Ralph Moss

In the next few years, as these Baby Boomers enter their senior years, cancer incidence will also tend to increase. In about ten to fifteen years, the Baby Boomers will start to die of the diseases of old age, including, of course, cancer. The impact of such demographics will then be solidly felt on national mortality figures for cancer, as well as other diseases. Thus, unless something changes radically in the sphere of cancer treatment or prevention, we can expect that there will be a steady upturn in the overall cancer death statistics, coinciding with the aging of the Boomer generation, and that this will continue for a decade or longer.

The reality of rising cancer mortality figures in an aging population will hit us hard, and it is something for which our leaders appear unprepared, both intellectually and practically. It is likely to make all the current talk about the decline in cancer mortality, and the conquest of cancer, sound increasingly hollow.

Over Dosed America

I have heard the author of this book talk twice. He is brilliant

Dr. Abramson became aware that patient care was increasingly being compromised by the growing waste and commercialism in American medicine. By "researching the research," he found that the clinical studies presented in even the most respected medical journals were often biased by drug and medical device company sponsorship, and that the medical information available to even the most dedicated doctors often differed from what the scientific evidence really showed about the best way to take care of their patients.

He has the number of the medical industrial complex. It is up to everyone else, especially our politicians to listen. Even though he does not talk about cancer care his arguments are equally applicable to cancer research. Simply put: alternatives are not near as seriously considered because they do not have the same corporate sponsorship and profit behind them to create new standards of care.

To read excerpts from his book and see video of him speaking click here.