GLOBAL HEALING CENTER, INC. "Worldwide Leaders In Advanced Alternative Medicine" www.ghchealth.com / www.oxypowder.com Alternative Health & Healing Newsletter August / September 2003 Dr. Group’s Quote of the Month: "Do not blame or judge people – be accepting and sincere. Accept everyone as your brother or sister." Table Of Contents A Hot Flush For Big Pharma How To Be A Corporate Drug Dealer Chlorine, Cancer and Heart Disease 7 Things Happy People Know How To Do Chemotherapy Quotes Naturopathic Licensing Bill Passes California State Assembly A Hot Flush For Big Pharma How HRT studies have got drug firms rallying the troops Jocalyn Clark, editorial registrar So the headlines have dealt another blow to the image of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Will the drug companies be able to revive the fortunes of one of their most lucrative products? Will the big guns of the pharmaceutical industry be blazing, eager to counteract the latest volley of bad publicity? Or will the industry construct its defenses more subtly? Certainly, if the history of HRT promotion is anything to go by, the pharmaceutical public relations machine will be doing all it can to limit the fallout from studies published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine (2003;349: 523-34) [Abstract/Free Full Text] and the Lancet (2003;362: 419-27), just as it has been since the first damning results from long term HRT studies were released last year. After all, billions in global sales are at stake. The two latest studies confirm that postmenopausal women taking combined HRT have an increased risk of heart disease and a twofold greater chance of developing breast cancer. These support the negative findings released in July 2002 after the huge US Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study was prematurely halted by its safety monitoring board. But what exactly can the PR machine do in the face of evidence that now says long term HRT use increases women's risk of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, breast cancer, and dementia, and has no quality of life benefits? Probably what it has always been doing—promoting the idea of HRT both as a cure for a medicalised menopause and an elixir even in the absence of scientific data. HRT has been touted for decades as a panacea not just for the symptoms of menopause (hot flushes, vaginal dryness) but also for heart disease, dementia, osteoporosis, sexual function, mood, and overall vitality. Its tireless promotion by manufacturers is often held up as the ultimate case study in pharmaceutical marketing. Not content to mass market its benefits for the short term relief of menopausal symptoms, the industry set its sights on a bigger goal: the widespread acceptance of HRT as a long term preventive medicine for the massive (and growing) number of postmenopausal women. So far it seems that that strategy has worked. Science journalist Barbara Seaman, who has written extensively about the medicalisation of the menopause, says that American pharmaceuticals giant Wyeth's HRT products have been in the top 50 selling drugs in the US for almost four decades. More than 100 million women worldwide—1.5 million in Britain—took HRT in 2001 and global sales amounted to $3.8bn (£2.4bn; €3.4bn). But after the first wave of publications from the WHI study, Wyeth, which accounts for more than 70% of the global market, saw its share price plummet. The stock, which traded as high as $58.48 (£36.48; €51.66) in May 2002, fell by almost half to a low of $28.25 in July.http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7411/400 - FIG1 HRT promotion has depended heavily, although covertly, on industry involvement with scientists. In the 1960s American physician Robert Wilson wrote the influential Forever Feminine, extolling the virtues of HRT as a virtual fountain of youth for the "dull and unattractive" ageing woman. In an article in the New York Times last year (10 July 2002), Wilson's son conceded that Wyeth paid for his father's book and promotion of HRT. In 2002 the powerful New York based Society for Women's Health Research, whose "sole mission is to improve the health of women through research," held a celebrity gala ostensibly celebrating women's "coming of age." It was entirely underwritten by Wyeth. In a Washington Monthly article entitled "Hot Flash, Cold Cash," journalist Alicia Mundy reported that only a few days after the Wyeth themed gala the company donated a quarter of a million dollars to the society. Several weeks later, the WHI study results were made public. Wyeth was in a tailspin. They found support from the society, whose high profile chief executive, Phyllis Greenberger, and her staff went on national radio and television talk shows attacking the findings of the WHI study and its authors. "Instead of taking the side of its constituents," Mundy observed, "the society seemingly took the side of its donors—and of Wyeth in particular." As they fervently downplayed the negative findings of the WHI study and urged women not to abandon their HRT, the society's staff failed to disclose their substantial links to Wyeth and other drug companies. Similar activities and non-disclosures are under investigation in Australia, after a complaint about the involvement of a well-known doctor, Susan Davis, in HRT promotion. HRT industry tactics play out not only in the ivory tower, but also in the corridors of big public relations firms. A group called HRT Aware hired London based PR firm the RED Consultancy to create an initiative that would "secure positive news coverage about HRT, target 45+ women with positive HRT messages, and link HRT to an aspirational life style" (www.pmlive.com/awards). The Choices Campaign, as it was called, launched in February 2000 to wide media coverage. It reached masses of "ordinary" women by touring bingo halls with local celebrities, using a former soap star and female doctor as spokeswomen, and forging relationships with charities such as the Menopause Amarant Trust. What is not so well known is that HRT Aware was an industry group comprised of oestrogen product manufacturers Janssen-Cilag, Wyeth, Solvay, Servier, Organon, and Novo Nordisk. http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7411/400 - FIG2 HRT Aware also commissioned the Social Issues Research Centre to produce a Jubilee Report (named to coincide with the Queen's Jubilee celebrations), which last month won a Communiqué award from the magazine Pharmaceutical Marketing in the public relations and medical education category. SIRC's research linked the improved lives of modern day postmenopausal women to HRT. It introduced a new elite group of 50+ women, dubbed the "HRHs" (hormone-rich and happy), who were said to have better careers, relationships, health, wellbeing, and sex lives than those not taking HRT. The Jubilee Report received widespread—and supportive—media coverage in the UK, virtually none of which mentioned that the pharmaceutical industry fashioned the campaign. This year Novo Nordisk hired German PR firm Haas & Health Partner, which sent out to doctors letters downplaying the WHI results. The letters emphasized that the "absolute risk for women is quite minimal" and were signed by Dr Irene Haas (a historian, according to her company's website). A subsequent letter from Dr Haas states "amazingly, a glass of wine per day and obesity have higher breast cancer risks." That pharmaceutical companies devise clever ways to market their products is hardly surprising. But let us hope that any counter attack that they make to the latest damaging research is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that HRT itself is now under. HOW TO BE A CORPORATE DRUG DEALER Shane Ellison M. Sc. - August 8, 2003 - NewsWithViews.com The growth in knowledge of biochemistry, physiology, organic chemistry, and chemical process methods has yielded millions of new synthetic (man-made) drug targets. These new discoveries have the potential to bring billion-dollar profits to any pharmaceutical company who can convince medical doctors, the FDA and the American public of the necessity of these new patentable drugs in ensuring health. Considering that these drugs have toxicity profiles that make marijuana and crack look like candy and that natural, inexpensive medicine derived from food are easily accessible and extremely effective, this endeavor looks impossible at first glance. However, I want to make it clear to my fellow pharmaceutical entrepreneurs that several proven methods for success in corporate drug dealing exist. These methods are readily available to us, and have proven so effective that if done properly, naïve Americans will be begging us for the latest and greatest synthetic drug. More exciting, once used, their blind loyalty to our drugs will undoubtedly lead to further drug use as a means for treating the negative side-effects associated with the initial drug we push on these fools. So, go by a new house, hell, buy two. Buy your wives a vacation to a tropical island. Pay cash for your new Lexus and private jet. While the stock market drops at record speeds, our profits will be soaring. In no time, we will have an amount of money that would make every industry in the world envious. First and foremost, we must gain the trust of medical doctors. They haven't been trained on the use of natural medicine for over 75 years, so convincing them will be like feeding candy to a baby. The secret is known as "Medical Ghost Writing". In order to convince doctors that our drugs are extremely safe and effective we will find academic PhD's (poor, hungry and driven) to write favorable reports about our drugs. Considering that these reports will be false it is unlikely that the PhD's will be willing to put their name on the paper, maybe even reluctant to write them. To push them into doing what we say, we'll offer them $20,000 for each report! Don't worry; this is pennies compared to what we'll make. And considering how overworked and underpaid these PhD's are they'll beg us for the opportunity. Since they won't put their names on the false reports, we'll simply find complacent, high-paid doctors (a dime a dozen) looking for prestige to list their names as authors. Once done, we'll publish these reports in peer reviewed medical journals like the Lancet, British Medical Journal, and New England Journal of Medicine. Other medical doctors will read these and succumb to the scientifically written propaganda and ultimately begin feeding our drugs to the public! Second, we want the public to go along with the charade and eat whatever drug the medical doctors feed them. To this end, we will deceitfully and tirelessly advertise directly to all of America via radio, magazine and television. We'll call this guerrilla drug marketing. Every single ad will focus on how safe and effective our drugs are. We'll throw in a few antidotal negative side-effects to make the ad appear "more real". Over time, taking our drugs and becoming an FDA approved drug addict will be the norm. In fact, becoming an FDA approved drug addict will be so common place that to refuse our drugs will make one look like a "fool". We can then convince America that they are "quacks" with no scientific basis whatsoever. I assure you, this type of Direct-to-Consumer advertising is the Holy Grail for success in corporate drug pushing. According to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), drugs that are promoted directly to consumers are often the best-selling drugs despite their safety and effectiveness. As shown by the GAO in its report to congress, sales for DTC advertised drugs increase faster than sales for drugs that are not heavily advertised to consumers. Specifically, between 1999 and 2000, the number of prescriptions drugs dispensed that underwent heavy DTC advertising rose 25 percent. Conversely, drugs that did not undergo heavy DTC advertising only increased 4 percent. Who said getting rich wasn't easy? This is going to be a breeze! Future tactics can be employed if necessary, there's nothing wrong with being greedy. Once the aforementioned techniques are in place we can begin other routes of guerrilla drug pushing. We can invent diseases characterized by common everyday symptoms. We can convince parents that their kids should be docile robots and if not that they must feed them central nervous system stimulants to make them "normal". We can brainwash the public into thinking that everyone should have the exact same cholesterol levels or face the consequence of early death, thus causing them to take our cholesterol-lowering drugs. We can elicit the help of the DEA to make natural drugs illegal to possess. This will force the more intelligent persons to take our drugs as a last ditch effort to procure health rather than taking inexpensive natural medicine. And finally, we can engage an army of pharmaceutical reps onto the front lines by having them visit every single medical doctor in the nation to distribute our drug propaganda. These reps will be paid handsomely as to curve any ethical or moral question they might have about dealing our drugs. References: 1. As reported by Erica Johnson of CBC news, medical ghostwriting is the practice of hiring PhD's to crank out favorable drug reports while leaving out negative side effects for drug companies. Once the report is complete, drug companies will get doctors to put their name on the report as authors. The carrot? Ghost writers can receive up to $20,000 per report while the doc's are enticed with money and prestige. These reports are then published in the most prestigious medical journals such as the Lancet, British Medical Journal, and New England Journal of Medicine. Chlorine, Cancer and Heart Disease "We are quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water." Medical College Of Wisconsin research team The addition of chlorine to our drinking water began in the late 1800s and by 1904 was the standard in water treatment, and for the most part remains so today. We don’t use chlorine because it’s the safest or even the most effective means of disinfection, we use it because it is the cheapest. In spite of all our technological advances, we essentially still pour bleach in our water before we drink it. The long-term effects of chlorinated drinking water have just recently being recognized. According to the U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality, "Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine." Dr. Joseph Price wrote a highly controversial book in the late sixties titled Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine and concluded that nothing can negate the incontrovertible fact, the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities such as heart attacks and stroke, is chlorine." Dr. Price later headed up a study using chickens as test subjects, where two groups of several hundred birds were observed throughout their span to maturity. One group was given water with chlorine and the other without. The group raised with chlorine, when autopsied, showed some level of heart or circulatory disease in every specimen, the group without had no incidence of disease. The group with chlorine under winter conditions, showed outward signs of poor circulation, shivering, drooped feathers and a reduced level of activity. The group without chlorine grew faster, larger and displayed vigorous health. This study was well recepted in the poultry industry and is still used as a reference today. As a result, most large poultry producers use dechlorinated water. It would be a common sense conclusion that if regular chlorinated tap water is not good enough for the chickens, then it probably is not good enough for us humans! There is a lot of well-founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic. "Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States". The Environmental Defense Fund Simply stated chlorine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, whose sole purpose is to kill living organisms. When we consume water-containing chlorine, it kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue inside our body. Dr. Robert Carlson, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who’s work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums it up by claiming, "the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution", and adds that "chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times!" Breast cancer, which now affects one in every eight women in North America, has recently been linked to the accumulation of chlorine compounds in the breast tissue. A study carried out in Hartford Connecticut, the first of it’s kind in North America, found that, "women with breast cancer have 50% to 60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorination byproducts) in their breast tissue than women without breast cancer." One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 2/3s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering. A warm shower opens up the pores of the skin and allows for accelerated absorption of chlorine and other chemicals in water. The steam we inhale while showering can contain up to 50 times the level of chemicals than tap water due to the fact that chlorine and most other contaminants vaporize much faster and at a lower temperature than water. Inhalation is a much more harmful means of exposure since the chlorine gas (chloroform) we inhale goes directly into our blood stream. When we drink contaminated water the toxins are partially filtered out by our kidneys and digestive system. Chlorine vapors are known to be a strong irritant to the sensitive tissue and bronchial passages inside our lungs; it was used as a chemical weapon in World War II. The inhalation of chlorine is a suspected cause of asthma and bronchitis, especially in children… which has increased 300% in the last two decades. "Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of chlorine in the water." Dr Lance Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chlorine in shower water also has a very negative cosmetic effect, robbing our skin and hair of moisture and elasticity, resulting in a less vibrant and youthful appearance. Anyone who has ever swam in a chlorinated pool can relate to the harsh effects that chlorine has on the skin and hair. What’s surprising is that we commonly find higher levels of chlorine in our tap water than is recommended safe for swimming pools. The good news is that chlorine is one of the easiest substances to remove from our water. For that reason it logically should serve it’s purpose of keeping our water free from harmful bacteria and water borne diseases right up to the time of consumption, where it should then be removed by quality home water filtration. 7 Things Happy People Know How To Do (And You Can Too!) Kathy Gates, Professional Life Coach Ever wondered about those people who seem to be able to always roll with the punches and be happy no matter what the circumstances (we all know at least one)? Are they out of touch with reality, or do they know something that you don't? I was curious, so I began to ask "happy" people what they thought their secret was. Here are some of the answers I got. See if using one of them in your own life might help you be a happier person too. 1. Happy people are in control of their lives. They choose where they live, where they work, how much they smile, what they eat. They choose what time they get up, how they spend their money, when they'll balance the checkbook. Don't underestimate how choosing the small things in your life creates an environment that you want instead of one dictated by circumstance. 2. Happy people know that their bodies are connected to their minds, and they must take care of both. Eating better, sleeping enough, getting some exercise all ties into a happier frame of mind. Watch what goes into your body as well as what goes into your mind. 3. Happy people don't treat life as a win-lose game. Instead, they know how to treat life as a learning experience. Very few things are written in stone. If something's not working, try something different. Don't keep beating your head against the wall just because "that's the way you've always done it." 4. Happy people know how to live in the present. Bad things have happened to everyone, but why would you want to relive a bad experience over and over and over? Let the bad in your past go, and look to the good things that you can create in the present and the future. 5. Happy people expect that "life happens" (yeah I cleaned that up a bit). If you anticipate the best, yet prepare for the worst, you'll always be in the driver's seat. You won't get blindsided by a mistake or circumstance that you can't control. You won't feel helpless. You'll feel prepared. 6. Happy people create a step-by-step plan. Waiting for things to happen to you might work. Including the lottery in your long-term financial plans might work. But don't underestimate the power of small steps in your life. Just saving one dollar a day equals a debt free Christmas at the end of the year. 7. Happy People know how to move on from mistakes by learning and looking ahead. Don't stop in the middle of what you're doing and focus on the mistake. It will paralyze you from moving forward. Move on by focusing on where you need to be, on what's important at that time. Analyze the mistake later when you can learn constructively from it, not beat yourself up about it. Chemotherapy Quotes "2 to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy. "NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein. "A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996) "Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990 The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing." "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, Vol. 6. There is a fifty-page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said, "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".) "With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P. Quillin, Ph.D. "1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss. "….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D. "Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."—Diamond. Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D. According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 - 1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, was included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of "statistically significant" results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also, Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca = 75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??----RD Hodgell, M.D. "The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, Sept/Oct 1990. "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. "Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D. "We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist. John Robbins: Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy - 3% Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life - none. Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity" - 75% Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%. Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the world Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers - Richard L. Gelb. Mr. Gelb's other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of managers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World's largest private cancer treatment and research center. Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering's board of overseers, board of managers - John S. Reed. Reed's other job - director, Philip Morris (tobacco company). Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company - Samuel Broder. Broder's other job (until 1995) - executive director, National Cancer Institute. From Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins. "If you can shrink the tumor 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph Moss "The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumor) response, irrespective of survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."---Abel.1990. "For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."---General Accounting Office "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society. "He said, "I'm giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are killing them, and I can't stop it because they say the protocol's what's important." And I say, "But the patient's not doing well." They say, "The protocol's what's important, not the patient." And he said, "You can't believe what goes on in the name of medicine and science in this country." --Gary Null The Politics of Cancer---Epstein That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer establishment---the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS). That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%. That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million. That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer. That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company." That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs. That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that makes contributions to political parties. That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal. That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products _food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action has not been taken. That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice. Naturopathic Licensing Bill Passes California State Assembly © By Peter Chowka (September 1, 2003) On August 28, 2003, a bill to license naturopaths (NDs) in California, the Naturopathic Doctors Act, passed the state's Assembly by an overwhelming margin (62-9). Last May 22, a similar version of the bill, SB 907, was approved by California's State Senate by a vote of 21-13. In the week after Labor Day, the state Senate is scheduled to consider - and is expected to quickly approve - the amendments added to SB 907 by the Assembly over the summer. After that, the final bill will go to Gov. Gray Davis for his signature. The highly publicized recall election of Democrat Davis, scheduled for October 7, which has placed California's convoluted politics in the national spotlight, will not affect the fate of the naturopathic legislation. With Davis expected to sign the bill (it was introduced and strongly supported by Democrats in the state legislature), California, the nation's largest state, will become the first state to fully license naturopathic doctors since a flurry of four small states (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Utah) acted almost a decade ago. Currently, a total of eleven states license NDs and one, Kansas, allows them to register. Another interesting statistic: With a 2002 population of over 35 million people, California will now have more residents served by licensed NDs than the total population of all the rest of the licensed states put together. The California Association of Naturopathic Physicians (CANP), which has spent over a decade working on licensing, may be waiting until Davis actually signs the bill before uncorking the champagne. Nonetheless, the anticipated smooth transition in about one week's time to the bill's becoming law is a major coup for the small naturopathic profession, whose members number in the low thousands nationally. (The CANP itself lists about 100 members at its Web site.) The official recognition of this particular natural health care profession also appears to signal the growing potency in mainstream political circles of organized natural medicine in general. Gift of the Month for Alternative Health & Healing Newsletter Subscribers Get Ready For The Holidays!!! Buy 2 bottles of Oxy Powder and get 20% off your 2nd bottle! Included in all orders: Dr. Group’s "Confidential Hormone Balancing Report". Realizing the dangers of synthetic HRT, many women are choosing to balance their hormones naturally! Learn how you can do the same! (To take advantage of the Oxy Powder Special, orders must be placed by telephone – 713.476.0016. Orders placed through our shopping cart will not be eligible for this special offer. Please mention "Free Gift of the Month" when ordering.) PLEASE PASS THIS NEWSLETTER ON TO OTHER POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS. Editor: Edward F. Group, III, D.C., Ph.D, N.D., D.A.C.B.N. Assistant Editor: Loretta Lanphier, N.D., C.C.N., H.H.P. Published monthly by: Global Healing Center, Inc. 2040 North Loop West Suite 108 Houston TX 77018 713.476.0016 www.ghchealth.com www.colon-cleanse.info Questions, Comments: staff@ghchealth.com Subscribe: ghcnews-subscribe@myemailmanager.com Unsubscribe: ghcnews-unsubscribe@myemailmanager.com