Dr. Mark Sircus : Surviving Cancer

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Dear All,

We're delighted and privileged that Dr Mark Sircus (username marksircus) has joined the Avalon forum. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with his work, his website is here:

http://drsircus.com

And his personal profile is here.

http://drsircus.com/about-dr-sircus-treatment-method

This new thread is not mine, but his... we've offered him this space, as Wade Frazier has, as an area in which he can present his work for the benefit of all.

A warm welcome to Mark from myself and all those who appreciate his commitment for planetary health and wellness in all and every way.

[Blacklight43]

Welcome aboard Mark. I have been a subscriber of the newsletter and think his input on this forum will be a wonderful addition indeed. And thank you Bill for bringing him here.

[onawah]

! I'm so happy Dr. Sircus has decided to join us.
I've been reading his newsletter for quite a while and posting some of them here on the forum on various subjects.
I am sure he will find some kindred spirits here on Avalon.
We were both students of the late Dr. Christopher Hills, a good springboard for good alternative thinking.
Welcome Mark!

PS update:For an example of one of Mark's excellent articles, see post # 425 on Dawn's thread about gut health here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ase#post778204

[Neal]

Welcome Dr. Sircus, to the Avalon community!

[Kimberley]

Welcome Dr. Sircus

[nomadguy]

Welcome and warm greetings Dr. Sircus! I am glad you have decided to join the Avalon Forum.
I will surely enjoy reading whatever information you have to share!

[Jean-Luc]

Welcome Dr Sircus.

I've been reading many of your thought provoking articles as of 2008.

I was wondering whether you'd have any news from Dr Simoncini and his research, or if you are still in contact with him.

I had translated these video's 4 years ago:http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/fr...ongique/08/13/
but haven't followed his work ever since. We tried, without success, the bicarbonate treatment on a young child with a difficult (and hopeless) brain cancer some years ago.

Best wishes for the new year!

Jean-Luc

[marksircus]

Is Chemotherapy Legitimate?

There’s a revolution occurring in cancer treatment, and it could mean the end of chemotherapy as we know it now, as a brutal crushing treatment that hurts more than it helps. Orthodox oncology is looking at new pharmaceuticals that not only are less toxic but also more targeted. Dr. Martin Tallman, chief of the leukemia service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “I think we are definitely moving farther and farther away from chemotherapy, and more toward molecularly targeted therapy.”
Recent years have confronted oncologists with new realities as truths about cancer are being knocked down and rewritten. It is dawning in the field the idea that it may not be as helpful to treat cancers by where they originate — in the breast or prostate or lung — but rather by the processes that fuel them.

But the newer refined approaches from the mainstream are still tainted by important pharmaceutical weaknesses. “Cancer cells, like bacteria and viruses, are wily enough to bypass roadblocks to their survival, and often mutate to overcome the effects of targeted drugs. Individual tumors may be composed of different types of aberrant cells, possessing a variety of mutations that are susceptible to different drugs. And this cast of cells can be ever changing over the course of an individual patient’s battle with the disease.”

Chemotherapy and radiation, as presently practiced, attacks both cancer cells and healthy cells, which is why chemotherapy and radiation are terrible to endure. The essence of chemotherapy is to use chemicals strong enough to kill cancer cells. This is a good idea as long as the chemo agents do not harm the host meaning they do not harm us. But that is not the case.
Biochemists discovered a long time ago that cancer cells grow at a much faster rate than regular cells, so if a chemical can be injected that only kills fast-growing cells (cytotoxic), cancer cells and tumors will get killed. The problem is cancer cells aren’t the only fast growing cells in the body.

Anywhere where there is cellular rejuvenation occurring gets hit with chemo including hair, mouth, digestive tract, and our all-important white blood cells. Like radiation therapy, the loss of white blood cells is the part of chemo that doctors are most concerned about when administering it. The immune system basically gets toasted, yet this is considered acceptable collateral damage.

Oncologists have it wrong in their choice of rays for radiation therapy and chemicals chosen for chemotherapy. They picked the heavy killing nuclear type of radiation that causes cancer as opposed to the intense life generating kind of radiation (near and far infrared and Bioresonance frequencies) that offers healing. Their choice of chemicals that destroy life and health instead of ones that bring immune strength and healing will brand the present generations of oncologists for all time.
Why didn’t they choose medicinals and the type of radiation that targets the enemy cancer cells while leaving our healthy cells alone? Why not since it is very possible to strengthen the immune system with the right natural chemo and radiation if one chooses the right medicinals and the right kind of radiation? There are plenty of substances that scientists have studied which shrink tumors reducing a person’s chances of dying from cancer and most of them actually are not toxic like the mustard gas derived chemotherapy, which still sets the standard for barbarism in the field of oncology. The medicine presented in this compendium offers more intelligent forms of chemotherapy and radiation.

The New York Times writes, “When it comes to taming tumors, the strategy has always been fairly straightforward. Remove the offending and abnormal growth by any means, in the most effective way possible. And the standard treatments used today reflect this single-minded approach — surgery physically cuts out malignant lesions, chemotherapy agents dissolve them from within, and radiation seeks and destroys abnormally dividing cells.”
The New York Times, not always known for the best medical information, believes that such methods work but concedes that, “these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumor.” The entire field of oncology is vulnerable to attack not only because of the brutality of its treatments but also because new and better options are coming to the surface. The main point, besides the cruel wrongness of present approaches, is that IT DOES NOT WORK.

Dr. Ulrich Abel, who poured over thousands of cancer studies, published a shocking report in 1990 stating that chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers; that 80% of chemotherapy administered was absolutely worthless. Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician. In the eighties, he contacted over 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer.
Has this information stopped anyone from doing chemotherapy? It’s a good question and we know the answer. Statistics stop few people! People remain terrified of cancer no matter what the data says because they are being terrified deliberately by their oncologists who readily suggests that you will die unless you follow his treatment plan. Doctors continue to do what they are told (forced) to do by medical authorities and they continue to do what is most profitable and it really does not matter what the truth is it’s what they say it is. It does not matter what research comes along if it does not toe the party line it is rejected and forgotten.

Dr. Abel’s report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990) described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked. Everyone knows someone who has died of cancer, chemotherapy and radiation but oncologists like to hide the fact that patients die from the chemo and radiation before they would die from the cancer.

Abel’s research led him to a sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature where he concluded that treatments for advanced epithelial cancer rarely were successful. By “epithelial” Dr. Abel is talking about the most common forms of adenocarcinoma – lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. These account for at least 80 percent of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.
“This is an astounding charge coming from a member of the cancer establishment. In Germany they earned Abel a big, largely favorable, article in Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time. Here, the powerful chemotherapy establishment has maintained discreet silence. More and more, toxic chemotherapy is being used against advanced cases of such diseases. More than a million people die worldwide of these forms of cancer every year and the majority of them now “receive some form of systemic cytotoxic therapy before death,” wrote Dr. Ralph Moss who continued on to say, “The personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public. Indeed, studies cited by Abel have shown that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.”

Dr. Moss in his book Questioning Chemotherapy said that in a good number of surveys chemotherapists have responded that they would neither recommend chemotherapy for their families nor would they use it themselves. And this makes sense because pharmaceutically sourced chemotherapy is a mistake—a big mistake that causes suffering and premature death.
Dr. Abel stated that “there is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease. The almost dogmatic belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy is usually based on false conclusions from inappropriate data.” Small-cell lung cancer “is the only carcinoma for which good direct evidence of a survival improvement by chemotherapy exists,” wrote Dr. Abel but this improvement amounted to a matter of only three months!
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacr...prescribe.html
Reduction of tumor mass does not prolong expected survival because often the cancer returns more aggressively than before. Killing off cancer masses fosters the growth of resistant cell lines that are much more aggressive leading to an even earlier death. Dr. Abel reported that, “To date there have been no randomized studies yielding clear evidence for an improvement of quality of life by means of chemotherapy. Oncology has been unable to provide a solid scientific
foundation for cytotoxic therapy in its present form.”

Dr. Jonathan S. Berek, a gynecological oncologist at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center tells us that normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries, Fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90% of patients then go into remission, a period of "watchful waiting."

"The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90% of women will relapse and die," says Berek. “When the cancer returns, in other surrounding tissue, the cancer is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy.”

[Jean-Luc]

This 2004 peer-reviewed paper by three Australian oncologists confirms the statistically insignificant contribution to cancer survival of chemotherapy for 22 types of malignancies, in Australia and the USA.

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16(8):549-60.
Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. gmorgan1@bigpond.net.au

AIMS: The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849