Man Who Questions Chemotherapy : Dr Ralph Moss
Ralph Moss has written the book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which documents
the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers. On November
19, 1977, he was fired for telling the public the truth. At a press conference
on November 18th, he and the Second Opinion working group released a well-documented
48-page report that stated the top officials of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center had lied about the results of a study performed at the center
regarding "Laetrile" -- (a natural, alternative cancer treatment).
Moss has gained credibility by writing eight books, including his most recent
work, Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment.
He also wrote The Cancer Industry, a documented research work telling of
the enormous financial and political corruption in the "cancer establishment".
He indicates that the motivating forces in cancer research and treatment
are often power and money, and not the cure of cancer patients. He also
writes, The Cancer Chronicles, a newsletter reporting on new cancer treatments
and preventive measures.
Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of
cancer. However, he is fair in pointing out that there are the following
exceptions: Acute Iymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and nonseminomatous
testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma,
Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these
account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the United States.
This leaves some 96% to 98% of other cancers, in which chemotherapy doesn't
eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as breast, colon,
and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy. However, there
is another category where chemotherapy has a relatively minor effect --
The most "successful" of these is in Stage 3 ovarian cancer, where
chemotherapy appears to extend life by perhaps eighteen months, and small-cell
lung cancer in which chemotherapy might offer six more months.
cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective"
drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28
days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between
shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of
the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she
thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it cures cancer.
But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.
usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve
the quality of the life either. Doctors frequently make this claim though.
There are thousands of studies that were reviewed by Dr. Moss as part of
the research for his book -- and there is not one single good study documenting
patients consider "good quality of life" seems to differ from
what the doctors consider. To most it is just common sense that a drug that
makes you throw up, and lose your hair, and wrecks your immune system is
not improving your quality of life. Chemotherapy can give you life-threatening
mouth sores. People can slough the entire lining of the intestines! One
longer-term effect is particularly tragic: people who've had chemotherapy
no longer respond to nutritional or immunologically-based approaches to
their cancers. And since chemotherapy doesn't cure 96% to 98% of all cancers
anyway...People who take chemotherapy have sadly lost their chance of finding
another sort of cure.
especially telling that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have
said they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their
families. Chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately
into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons.
The whole thing began with experiments with "mustard gas," the
horrible chemical-warfare agents from World War I.
Moss' position on chemotherapy is supported by many major students of the
study of cancer treatment. Following are some examples: Dr. John Bailar
is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was formerly
the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the
New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Dr. Bailer and Dr.
Elaine Smith, a colleague from the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith
wrote: "Some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the
treatment of cancer have not had much overall effect on the most fundamental
measure of clinical outcome - death. The effort to control cancer has failed
so far to obtain its objectives.
John Cairns, a professor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view
in Scientific American in 1985, "that basically the war on cancer was
a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority
back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA fame was quoted in the
New York Times saying that the American public had been "sold a nasty
bill of goods about cancer."
Dr. Albert Braverman, Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the State
University of New York, Brooklyn, published an article in Lancet titled
"Medical Oncology in the 1990s," in which he wrote: "The
time has come to cut back on the clinical investigation of new chemotherapeutic
regimens for cancer and to cast a critical eye on the way chemotherapeutic
treatment is now being administered."
Braverman says that there is no solid tumor incurable in 1976 that is curable
today. Dr. Moss confirms this and claims that the greatest breakthrough
in the objective study of chemotherapy came from a biostatistician at the
University of Heidelberg, Dr. Ulrich Abel. His critique focused on whether
chemotherapy effectively prolonged survival in advanced epithelial cancer.
His answer was that it is not effective. He summarized and extended his
findings and concluded that chemotherapy overall is ineffective. A recent
search turned up exactly zero reviews of his work in American journals,
even though it was published in 1990. The belief is that this is not because
his work was unimportant -- but because it's irrefutable.
the extensive documentation in Dr. Moss' book, and all the statistics developed
by the experts, why is chemotherapy still pushed by the large majority of
oncologists? Dr. Moss feels that "there's a tremendous conflict going
on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists." They're
in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these
drugs. And they've devoted many years to reaching a very high level of expertise
in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They're really in a bind,
because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools
they've been given don't work. And they see what happens to physicians who
"step out of line" and treat cancer with alternative means.
raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing and ostracism are some of
the consequences. These could all be related to the quotation in the book
made by Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
At a recent National Institute of Health meeting, he said of chemotherapy:
"[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is
there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede
to get at physicians and prescribers." You never heard that on the
economics of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is close
to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The chemotherapy part of that
by 1995 will be up to $8.5 billion. Looking from another angle: the Bristol
Myers company owns patents on twelve of the nearly forty "FDA-approved"
chemotherapeutic drugs. The president, past president, chairman of the board,
and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the
board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Moss' book details the failures (and very few successes) for chemotherapy
with more than fifty types of cancer, includes a complete description of
the major chemotherapy drugs, and has a section about questions to ask your
doctor. All of Dr. Moss' books and Cancer Chronicles newsletters are available
from Equinox Press, 1-800-929-WELL or 718-636-4433.
obviously losing ground with conventional cancer treatment, because the
death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because conventional treatment
is based on a faulty standard: That the body must be purged of cancer by
aggressive and toxic methods such as surgery chemotherapy and radiation
therapy. This, of course, seemed reasonable back in 1894 when William Halsted,
M.D. did the first radical mastectomy, but it has proven to be so wrong
over the last 50 years that continuing to adhere to it constitutes more
fraud than honest mistake. However, this standard still dominates conventional
cancer therapy, and until that changes, we will continue to lose ground
Whitaker, a firm believer in Dr. Moss' work and alternative cancer therapy
goes on to give some of his personal views:
Don't Tell the Real Story
is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths per year is
how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more about the treatment
of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing
that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. 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 that we know don't work, because there's no other
Belief Systems Determine the Choices You Make
cancer treatment is such a sensitive issue, I need to set some ground rules
before I tell you what I would do if I had cancer. What follows is what
I personally would do. It is not a recommendation for you, and should not
be considered as such. It is not even what my wife would do(that would be
her decision), nor is it what my young son would do (that would be the joint
decision of my wife and myself). The choices to be made in treating cancer
are not easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of
them. The course that someone chooses to take is very personal, and reflects
not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also his/her beliefs.
because we are strongly influenced by our natural fear of death, we lineup
for conventional cancer therapy, not so much believing that it will work,
but hoping that it will not fail. If expensive, debilitating procedures
to eliminate acne scars had the same failure rate as cancer treatment, they
would be abandoned. It is only because cancer is so often fatal that conventional
approaches were not abandoned long ago. We continue to use them not because
they work, but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated
any other choice.
Imaginary Cancer Scenario
I would approach my own dilemma with hopes of total cure, I would be the
first to admit that, regardless of the course I took, the chances of that
are small. Consequently, my choices of cancer therapy are a mix of science
and philosophy. They are as much a reflection of how I would struggle for
survival as of how I would wish to die if the struggle failed. For the purposes
of this discussion, let us assume that I have just been diagnosed with cancer
of the lung, and a particularly virulent one. (Please understand that I
do not have cancer, nor do I smoke.) Before going into what I would do and
why, let me say what I wouldn't do, and why.
Wouldn't Take A Passive Role
am going to fight for my life, I want to do just that. I am always perplexed
by the news stories of some celebrity, doped to the gills with heinous poison,
"courageously battling for his life." What does this mean? The
celebrity, who simply accepts conventional cancer therapy, is no more "courageous"
than a laboratory mouse. This is not to say that what the celebrity is doing
is wrong, only that it is the very opposite of a willful act of courage.
a passive role with today's conventional therapy is terribly dangerous.
Recently Jackie Kennedy, after a "courageous fight," succumbed
to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - or did she? Her early demise, attributed to
the cancer, was a shock to cancer specialists worldwide, and brought into
question the real cause of her death. She had been given an unproved protocol
of very high-dose chemotherapy. The drugs alone could easily have caused
her death - and this would not be unusual. There are numerous cases of iatrogenic
(doctor-induced) deaths from chemotherapy.
Actively Fight For My Life
other hand, the cancer patient who says, "no, thanks" to chemotherapy
recommended by large cancer treatment centers, and takes off to Grand Bahamas
Island to receive Immuno-Augmentative Therapy (IAT); or to Houston, Texas,
to receive antineoplastons from Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; or who heads to
the public library to make a battle plan, has begun fighting and is acting
I win or lose, that is the course I would take. What have I got to lose?
Conventional treatment is toxic and simply doesn't work, so I would throw
my lot with something safe that might work, and folks, a lot of approaches
fit that description. I also believe patients who seek alternative therapies
are more optimistic. They have only one worry - the cancer- not the cancer
and the therapy!
Now. Here's What I Would Do
turn my back on 50 years of institutionalized expertise, because it follows
the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine 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.
cancer cells are different from normal cells in many ways, including their
metabolic profile. At least one non-toxic therapy, hydrazine sulfate, takes
advantage of this difference. It has been shown in double-blind trials published
in respectable journals to significantly reduce the severe weight loss (cachexia)
of advanced cancer, and markedly improve the patient's emotional state,
almost to the point of euphoria. It is also inexpensive. Even though hydrazine
sulfate has been shown to be effective and non-toxic, and it makes the patient
feel better, it is ignored by every major cancer center. Yet I would take
it immediately. (For more on hydrazine sulfate, see Ralph Moss' book, The
I would Change My Diet
switch to a mostly vegetarian diet. I'd also take the Nutritional Supplements
"Green foods," such as GREENS+ (800/643-1210) or Green Magma (from
Healthy Directions; 800/722-8008, ext. 572). These supplements include the
phyto-chemicals, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals required for optimal
health.. I would enhance that basic program with the following:
C - 10,000 mg per day in divided doses. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician,
did a study in which 100 cancer patients were given 10,000 mg of vitamin
C for the rest of their lives, while control patients were not. The patients
on vitamin C lived much longer than the age-matched controls. The Mayo Clinic
did two studies on vitamin C, and in both studies found that vitamin C did
not help. However, both studies were set up in a manner that almost guaranteed
failure. Frankly, I think that this was done intentionally to generate negative
publicity for this non-toxic approach.
- A three- to four-month trial of bovine or shark cartilage. The mucopolysaccharides
in cartilage stimulate the immune system and normalize malignant cells.
Ninety percent of patients with a variety of cancers responded to a clinical
trial of bovine cartilage; shark cartilage has demonstrated success rates
of 25 to 50%. VitaCarte bovine cartilage is available from Phoenix BioLabs,
800/947-8482 (suggested dose is 9 g a day). Shark cartilage can be obtained
from MHP 800-647-0074 (suggested dose is 1 g per 3 pounds of body weight).
Q10 (CoQ10) - Used as an effective therapy in congestive heart failure,
CoQ10 has only recently been studied as a cancer treatment. Cancer patients
have been found to have deficiencies of CoQ10. Clinical trials in breast
cancer have resulted in no further metastases, improved quality of life
(no weight loss and less pain), and partial remission in six of 32 patients.
Vitaline makes a chewable CoQ10 with vitamin E (800/648-4755; 503/482-9231,
Tea - 2 ounces 3 times a day. This blend of four herbs -burdock root, sheep's
sorrel, slippery elm and Indian rhubarb root- has its genesis in Native
American medicinal folklore. Since it was "discovered" by Canadian
nurse Rene Caisse in the 1920s, thousands have claimed to have had their
cancers cured by this tea. I'd keep on searching. We have the formula if
you are interested in purchasing the individual herbs in bulk.
you should know that if I were battling cancer - or any serious disease,
for that matter- I would be in a constant search for effective, non-toxic
therapies. One place to begin that search is with Ralph Moss, Ph.D. He is
probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies
for cancer, and has recently published a 530-page book, Cancer Therapy,
The Independent Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention. (Equinox
Press, New York, NY, 1995). In addition, Dr. Moss offers a report service
called Healing Choices, which ascertains, through a questionnaire, the type
and severity of cancer, and suggests alternatives. This costs $250, and
it is well worth it. If I had cancer, I would start here for more information.
You can get more information by sending a large SASE to The Cancer Chronicles,
2 Lincoln Square, Suite 31A, New York, NY 10023, or by calling Melissa Wolf
source of information is People Against Cancer, which provides a comprehensive
counseling service called the Alternative Therapy Program. It includes a
review of your medical records by a network of doctors using alternative
therapies. It also costs $250. People Against Cancer can be reached at 515/972-4444.
Their Internet address is: http://www.dodgenet.com/nocancer
is certainly not my final say on cancer treatment, because it changes as
new research is done. I want to say again that what I would do is not a
recommendation for you. However, it is not a reasonable belief to think
that conventional cancer experts offer the best approaches for most cancers.
There is just too much evidence to the contrary. One of these days there
may not be a need for ''alternative' approaches to cancer. Until then, look
for the answers to the cancer riddle in the growing field of alternatives,
because they are obviously not present in our armamentarium of conventional