by R. Webster Kehr,
Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc.

Chapter 3 - Integrity

The Key Issue - Integrity

The issue of treating cancer has far more to do with integrity than it does with science. In fact, after several years of researching this very issue, it is clear to this author that treating cancer today has absolutely nothing to do with science. Nothing at all.

Had scientists embraced the Brandt Grape Cure of the 1920s, and refined it as future discoveries in natural medicine were made, cancer would have been a footnote in the history books written in the 1940s.

In the 1930s, Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, also discovered a cure for cancer using an electromedicine "frequency generator" which is commonly called a "Rife Machine." He was shut down and his technology was lost to the world for more than 70 years.

In fact, this website endorses a potent cancer treatment which is primarily a combination of the Brandt Grape Cure of the 1920s and the restoration of the "Rife Machine" of the 1930s. While this is a potent treatment, it is not the most potent treatment this website endorses.

The late Dr. Bob Beck, a PhD in physics, spent 40 years of his life working in electromedicine. Dr. Beck took the information he learned from the research of a Dr. Kalli and a Dr. Lyman and he developed a cure for AIDS.

Here is a quote from Dr. Bob Beck about Kaali and Lyman:

• "When I looked into Dr. Kaali's work [Patent #5188738 describes a cure for AIDS/HIV found at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1990], I decided to go ahead and fund it. We found that it worked all of the time [at curing AIDS/HIV]. For two and a half years, we gave full credit for this invention to Dr. Kaali, whose name is on the patent. Then I discovered that there was a long history of this technology. We followed a trail of these patents back 107 years! We found a patent, #4665898, that cured all cancer, dated May 19, 1987. Why has this been suppressed? Why hasn't your doctor told you about an absolutely proven, established cure for cancer? The answer is that doctors get $375,000 per patient for surgery, chemotherapy, x-ray, hospital stays, doctors and anesthesiologists. This is the official statistic from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Unfortunately, the medical patient cured is a customer lost.

  A lot of people say, "Aren't you infringing on others' patents?" In the beginning, I was nervous, but when I found this technology had been discovered and rediscovered for 107 years, I changed my mind. Now I am broadcasting it from the rooftops. Still, it is very touchy. It's rocking the pharmaceutical, surgical and diagnostic industries. But I really feel that I have been called to do this. I have had people come to my door with guns. I have been threatened and chased. But I think God wants this information out. I feel it is my mission to give people back to themselves, to deliver them from these vested interests, these [medical] priesthoods that are taking everyone's money. I am not charging a nickel."
  Bob Beck, PhD, Interviewed by Kenneth and Dee Burke

As another example, in 1976, two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, PhD, and an associate, Ewan Cameron, M.D., did a published scientific study in Scotland that resulted in proving that Vitamin C, given by I.V., of 10 grams a day, could extend the average length of time a terminal cancer patient lives by ten times or more as compared to orthodox cancer treatments.

Had the medical community had any integrity, they would have quickly replicated his study, come to the same conclusion (if they did exactly what he did), and would have quickly started giving every cancer patient, terminal or otherwise, 10 grams of Vitamin C by I.V. every day.

But that is not what happened.

What really happened is that 3 studies were done at the Mayo Clinic, all of which were directly a reaction to the Pauling/Cameron study. However, these studies were not designed to replicate the Pauling/Cameron research. Instead they were designed to AVOID replicating the Pauling/Cameron protocol, AVOID their patient mix, and AVOID their statistical methods. Obviously, if you don't follow the same protocol, you won't get the same results. And they didn't.

Here is what the American Cancer Society (ACS) says about this issue:

• "The Pauling study has been criticized by the NCI [National Cancer Institute, a division of the NIH or National Institutes of Health, a U.S. government agency] for being poorly designed, and subsequent studies done at the Mayo Clinic found that advanced cancer patients given the same dosage of vitamin C did not survive any longer than those not given the supplement. However, the Mayo Clinic trials have also been criticized for not fully addressing all the issues related to the effects of vitamin C, which still left questions about its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer." http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Vitamin_C.asp

The ACS would have been insane to challenge the integrity of Linus Pauling (one of his Nobel Prizes was the Nobel Peace Prize, the other was in chemistry). So they quote the totally corrupt NIH (Note: 500 NIH employees were recently caught taking bribes from the pharmaceutical industry, which they called "outside consulting fees") and state that a world famous chemist, and two-time Nobel Prize winner, doesn't know how to design a scientific study!!

But they also admit that the Mayo clinic did not use the same protocol as Pauling and Cameron. So if there are "still left questions," why hasn't the ACS used their annual hundreds of millions of dollars of income, and their political clout, to set the record straight and replicate the study as originally done? It has been more 40 years since the original study, yet no one in orthodox medicine, with their billions of dollars in research money, not even the ACS or NIH, has replicated the Pauling/Cameron study.

It appears that extending the life expectancy of terminal cancer patients six-fold, using natural substances, is not important to orthodox medicine.

In fact, two other studies did replicate the Pauling/Cameron study far more closely than did the Mayo Clinic. Both of these studies verified the Pauling/Cameron results. For more information, see:
Article from eBook: "Case Study of Scientific Corruption"

But this is just one of many, many instances where highly effective cancer treatments have been persecuted and/or ignored.

There is, in fact, a pattern. A very clear pattern. The pattern is that if natural substances are involved, such as vitamin C, the study and evidence is persecuted and/or ignored. When natural substances are involved it is called "alternative medicine." It should be called "persecuted and/or ignored medicine."

There are more than 400 alternative cancer treatments that use natural substances, such as Vitamin C. Every one of them is more effective than the Pauling/Cameron protocol. Every one of them is far more effective than chemotherapy and/or radiation. Every one of them is ignored and many of them have been persecuted.

But there is a clear reason why natural substances are ignored. It has nothing to do with their effectiveness. The pharmaceutical industry cannot patent and control, and thus cannot profit from, natural substances. They can only charge their monopolistic prices on synthetic molecules, many of which are nothing but mutations of natural molecules.

What is Going On In The Cancer Industry?

The February 22, 2006 USA Today mentioned that by the year 2015, 20% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) could be for health spending.

Now let's be logical. Suppose a cure for cancer was found; and suppose a treatment to avoid 90% of all heart disease problems was found; and suppose a cure for type 2 diabetes was found; and suppose a cure for AIDS/HIV was found. (In fact, all of these have been found.) Would health spending ever hit 20% of GDP? Of course not. All of these are highly profitable diseases for both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry (and the politicians who claim to represent their constituents).

All the money being rasied for treating AIDS patients in Africa are benefiting no one but the pharmaceutical industry stockholders because a cure for AIDS/HIV has been around since 1990.

So in essence, the article in U.S. Today was predicting that no cures for the highly profitable diseases would be found by the year 2015. That is a safe prediction!! Another safe prediction would be to predict that every new treatment for the profitable diseases will be more expensive and more profitable than existing treatments!! Here is another safe prediction, the 20% figure will be hit before 2015.

Here is yet another safe prediction: the media will continue to suppress alternative treatments for cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes, etc. See this web site, you will be amazed at what alternative medicine can already prevent and cure (and this website is just the tip of the iceberg):
Dementia, Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc. Website

Ask yourself this questions: "When was the last time orthodox medicine used their massive profits to find a cure for any disease?" When was the last time a cure for disease was found that used prescription drugs? If you said polio, you would be wrong. Polio was cured by a medical doctor in the 1940s, but the cure was suppressed because he used a form of Vitamin C, which drug companies could not patent and control.

Polio was also cured by a nurse in Australia who used massage therapy the right way. Polio was also cured by using ultraviolet light. All these cures were ignored prior to the development of the polio vaccine.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if someone found a cure for cancer? You probably think that the person finding the cure would be featured on every television show in America and would win a Nobel Prize in medicine. Kaali and Lyman, mentioned above, found a cure for AIDS / HIV, and more than 200 other diseases, and they didn't win a Nobel Prize. Have you ever heard of them before?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince the average American that orthodox medicine today is not only corrupt, it is more corrupt than it has ever been in the history of medicine. That is saying a lot because orthodox medicine was persecuting cures for disease in the 1700s.

Unfortunately, there are some in alternative medicine who are also more interested in profits than their patients. The main difference between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine is freedom. The people with integrity in alternative medicine are allowed a great deal of freedom to help others. However, the Food and Drug Administration is always looking for excuses to crush the people who know how to cure diseases which are highly profitable to Big Pharma and Big Medicine (and thus Big Government).

Nevertheless, in spite of some persecution, there are over 400 alternative cancer treatments that currently exist. Every one of them can cure some cases of cancer, if the person starts using that treatment immediately after being diagnosed. However, there is a very wide range in effectiveness between these treatments, especially when used on advanced cancer patients.

The problem with alternative medicine is that patients are frequently on their own to find out which treatments work for their situation - and which don't work. Unlike orthodox medicine, which is very uniform across the country, alternative medicine is neither organized, nor uniform. Nor do we have very much money. The quest for truth is always a winding and rocky road, especially when money is involved.

Some people erroneously think that medical doctors do not use the best alternative cancer treatments because the doctors do not know which treatments are really effective. While medical schools turn doctors into nothing but drug salesmen, that is not why medical doctors do not use natural substances in the treatment of disease. Medical doctors know how to read. But they also know that if they used a single one of these alternative cancer treatments on a single cancer patient, they would risk losing their license and/or could go to jail!!

While it is this attitude that creates uniformity in orthodox medicine, it is also this attitude that crushes progress. Orthodox medicine is a highly controlled monopoly, totally controlled by the combination of Big Pharma and the American Medical Association.

The suppression of truth by Big Medicine is why this website, and many other websites, exist. The major purpose of this website is to make information about alternative cancer treatments free and available to the public so that more and more people know which alternative cancer treatments are the strongest.

Why Some Alternative Cancer Treatments Are Far Superior
to Orthodox Cancer Treatments

All of your life you have probably been taught that natural substances from Mother Nature cannot possibly be as effective against cancer as the highly condensed, highly potent synthetic molecules made by the drug companies. In other words, you have been taught that chemotherapy drugs kill cancer cells far better than anything Mother Nature can put together.

That is definitely not a true statement, but even if it were true it would be an irrelevant issue!

The key issue is whether patented drugs or Mother Nature's minerals and nutrients target cancer cells better.

The fact of the matter is that chemotherapy does not target cancer cells. In fact, chemotherapy kills far, far more healthy cells than it does cancer cells.

What this means is that chemotherapy must be given in very, very low doses, spread out over long periods of time, and the therapy must include gaps between the treatments. This "pacing" of the drugs is because too many healthy cells would be killed if too much chemotherapy were given too fast.

The reason orthodox medicine treats cancer like a chronic disease is because orthodox treatments, in high doses, would kill the patient long before they would cure the cancer. This failure of orthodox medicine to safely kill cancer cells (i.e. safely target cancer cells) is why they talk about a "5 year cure rate" rather than a true cure rate. If they can keep the patient alive for 5 years they consider the patient to be "cured," even if they die in the sixth year.

Mother Nature's cancer treatments, called natural cancer treatments, or more commonly "alternative cancer treatments," generally do absolutely no harm to healthy cells. This is because the human body, which was made by Mother Nature, knows exactly what to do with Mother Nature's minerals and nutrients.

Virtually all natural treatments for cancer do not kill healthy cells - not a single one.

This is the key - because alternative cancer treatments do not harm or kill healthy cells, the items from nature that can kill cancer cells can be given in much higher doses than chemotherapy - without any gaps in treatment!!

Thus, even if the mutations of natural molecules, called drugs, were more potent at killing cancer cells than the original natural molecules, because of the superiority of natural substances at targeting cancer cells or leaving healthy cells healthy, alternative cancer treatments can be far more effective than orthodox drugs at treating cancer!

Because Mother Nature does not necessarily condense the cancer-killing nutrients found in foods, some of the most potent of the alternative cancer treatments are liquid ionic minerals, certain types of ozone treatments, and other natural treatments that contain molecules that can be condensed, such as intravenous vitamin C (but not the Pauling/Cameron doses, however).

Just how effective are the best treatments from Mother Nature? Several alternative cancer treatments have achieved a consistent 50% true cure rate on cancer patients who had been given up on by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die!

Such results are possible because these key alternative cancer treatments not only target cancer cells, they can be given in a very condensed and potent form, they do not need a catalyst, and they can be given safely in much higher doses than chemotherapy. Ponder that very carefully!

Also ponder the true cure rate of these same treatments on cancer patients who use these treatments exclusively, meaning they had not lost many months of treatment time while being treated with orthodox treatments!

However, do not assume all alternative cancer treatments are equally effective!! Very few of the 400+ alternative cancer treatments can come anywhere close to a 50% true cure rate on patients given up on by orthodox medicine.

One of the big mistakes people who seek out alternative cancer treatments make is to assume that if an alternative cancer treatment will cure one patient, it will cure all cancer patients, no matter what condition they are in. This is a dangerous assumption because very, very few of the 400+ alternative cancer treatments are condensed and potent enough to cure 50% of those sent home to die by orthodox medicine. Very few.

It could be a fatal mistake to see a testimonial on the Internet about someone who cured their cancer with alternative cancer treatments and then to use that treatment based on that testimonial. The reason it could be a fatal mistake is that the patient telling his or her story may have been a newly diagnosed patient, or had a much less aggressive type of cancer than you do!!

Chapter 4: Comparing Treatments

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved. This eBook may be downloaded, stored on the internet, printed, or emailed to others, as long as it is not modified in any way and this copyright notice remains intact.