This file is from the People's Spellbreaker. It seems to be part 2 of a two part article, but this is all I could find ....
THE PEOPLE'S SPELLBREAKER
EDITOR: John DiNardo
From the free airwaves of the People's
Pacifica Radio Network Station
505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10018
Part 2, CHEMOTHERAPY: Deadly Cancer Treatment Yields Lively Profits
RALPH MOSS [author of CANCER INDUSTRY]: 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 of cancer.
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.
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.