Chapter 4:

Embarrassment of Riches

How I Learned that Suppression is the
Medical Profession's Most Enduring Legacy:
A Quick Review of the Astonishing Number of
Effective Cancer Cures; the Conflict
This Poses to Our Common Narrative; and
How it Contributes to Understanding the Defects
in our Cultural Operating System.

---

Special Comparative Case Study:
A Short History of Scurvy
And the Suppression of Hypoascorbemia

hat I found most intriguing during the time I developed Alpha Omega Labs and researched alternative cancer treatments was not the lack of effective approaches, but their abundance and how efficiently the forces of the medical establishment and their allies had been at suppressing the evidence.
My initial exposure to the outrageousness of this presumption on the part of Modern Medical Mythology -- namely, that effective cancer cures are not already in abundance -- came through escharotics. However, it is not simple chronological integrity that caused me to devote these first three chapters to it.
Escharotics may have been the "path" by which I sought and found "enlightenment," but -- if you will allow me to extend the metaphor -- once having arrived I soon learned that there are many other legitimate paths to "enlightenment." And yet, as most Indian Gurus of note are likely to tell you, these paths may be in abundance . . . but they are largely ignored.
Before we get into the mechanics of "how they got away with it" -- and continue to do so, it is important to cover the most outstanding approaches and the relevant evidence. Because the readers of this work will include a broad spectrum: from novices of alternative health care to those rare practitioners who are already familiar to much of this material, I have tried to strike a compromise. There is plenty of bibliographical support below, however, I stick primarily to those approaches to which I have been an eyewitness.
With this introduction in hand, the purpose of this chapter thus turns on three objectives:

1. Recite The Evidence -- ... of these truly effective cancer remedies that the author worked with over the life of Alpha Omega Labs -- evidence which he readily admits is only the "tip of the iceberg."
2. Analyze the Power of 'Common Narrative' -- Show why most people are so strongly resistant to believe that effective cancer cures have been with us all along and that Modern Medicine's most significant contribution to Western culture is not its development of effective treatments, but its successful suppression of them -- (and even worse: the adoption of practices that actually enhance immunosuppression and a multitude of disease-states for the benefit of its profit and influence, which we cover in later chapters).
3. Introduce the Underlying Cause: The Defect in Our "Cultural Operating System" -- Show that the cognitive disonance created between objective, empirical reality and Modern Medical Mythology can only be cured by a study of Western civilization's "cultural operating system," setting the stage for subsequent chapters, where we will tie all the evidence together within a historical context. The chapter prepares the reader for this study by bookending this section with a study of hypoascorbemia, which is its most extreme state is known as "scurvy." This historical case study was chosen because it ties together the most important points outlined in this chapter: the use of the "suppression pattern" in dealing with effective, competing remedies; co-optation of competing healing systems or techniques when it serves the prevailing "profit model," the perverse use of common narrative to prevent people from acting in their own best, healthful interest; and, finally, the admission of a TRUE CURE only after a critical mass are already aware of a cure and further suppression can only prove bad for business or is otherwise politically untenable.
   

Before I expand the discussion of suppressed cancer remedies, I want to preface any further investigation by stating that in the thirteen years I operated Alpha Omega Labs, I was in contact -- in person, by email, or by phone, with literally thousands of cancer patients and their primary health care providers. Over this time, I came to believe that no treatment of any kind was a substitute for examining the underlying 'maladaptation' that was at the root of the problem.
Nearly all disease, but particularly cancer, has as its primary cause some condition to which the body, mind, or spirit has been subjected, which is in deviation from its natural state. [ 5b ]
Perfect health is man's natural state. Not disease. The body contains an unfathomably complex system of countermeasures to maintain its natural state (or "homeostatis") and is able to adapt to a wide variety of conditions. Those 'unnatural conditions' which take it outside the range of adaptable measures through which it can change and still maintain health -- be they spiritual, emotional, or grossly physical (i.e. bad diet, exposure to toxic chemicals or harmful EM emissions, etc.) -- are always examined first by a competent health care practitioner before the issue of 'treatment' is ever addressed.
If you have a flat tire, logic would dictate that you remove the nail before you attempt to patch the puncture. Orthodox medicine, as we will examine in more detail in coming chapters, is built upon an enormous edifice that dictates that since there is more money to be made by applying the patch (i.e. treatment) and keeping the nail in the tire (i.e. ignoring the maladaptive cause(s) . . . after all -- how can you have repeat business if the nail is removed?), the notion of timely 'nail-removal' is pure quackery. This position is part of a larger set of functions within Orthodox Medicine that I call "Managed Maladaptation," which I will get to later.
(Among the thousands of ready examples is the determination with which Orthodox Medicine has fought throughout most of its existence to teach that proper diet has nothing whatsoever to do with disease. More than one honest physician in the U.S. has told me in private, "We don't have 'health care' in this country. We have 'disease care.' It makes more money.")
This having been established, it is important to note that the examples below should not be considered in isolation of this understanding. Rather, the treatment approaches below are presented because they all follow a similar pattern, the same pattern that was presented to you when Cansema was discussed in Chapter 1. You will recognize most of the points below because most of them were included in the "Ten Conditions" when this Suppression Pattern was first introduced. Specifically, each treatment we will talk about carries the following characteristics:

1. On balance, these treatments consistently work MORE EFFECTIVELY than the approaches currently offered by Orthodox Medicine for most serious internal cancers, regardless of type -- those being surgery, radiation, and/or toxic, allopathic chemotherapy.
2. They are substantially CHEAPER than conventional treatment.
3. They are substantially SAFER than conventional treatment.
4. They cannot be patented, or if they have been patented, such legal protection has long since expired; and if they could be patented, they would be impossible to legally protect.
5. The majority lend themselves to self-administration, or otherwise make the patient less dependent on a physician or care provider.
6. If these treatment approaches were ever widely employed by a critical mass of primary care practitioners, it would mean the wholesale bankruptcy of a huge segment of the health care industry in the industrialized West.

During the very brief life of Lifeline Sciences, I was contacted by a 'distributor,' who claimed that she successfully used our zinc-chloride based escharotic preparation on her own stomach cancer. [6]
"You realize that 'Formula G' [7] is designed for topical use only, don't you?" I responded in surprise.
"Yes, I know," she retorted, "but it worked so well on my skin cancer, that it only seemed to make sense that it would work on the stomach."
"Yeah, but didn't it hurt like hell?" I responded, still amazed on hearing about this internal 'off-label' usage.
"For the first few hours, it sure did. It got pretty bad there for a while. Although it was much easier when I took it the second time . . . "
"Second time?" I interrupted. "You swallowed the salve more than once?"
"Oh, yes. I took several teaspoons of it over the last six weeks. I would have called you sooner, but I wanted to get the results of my doctor's check-up before I got back to you."
"What were the results?"
"He says I must not have had cancer . . . basically, that the initial diagnosis was not correct."
"I don't understand."
"Well, he didn't find any sign of my having cancer. And since I hadn't received 'chemo' treatment yet, I guess he figures that it must not have been cancer in the first place."
"This doesn't follow . . . You mean your doctor reasons that because you didn't receive conventional cancer treatment, that this constitutes an initial bad diagnosis?"
"That's right . . . "
Repeatedly over the next dozen years, I was to hear this same 'non sequitor' time and again -- supposedly coming from men of high education. Nonetheless, it was not the most ridiculous. The most ridiculous comment from customer's doctors who successfully used our escharotics for internal applications was actually more honest. It went something like this: "Please go to the front desk and pick up your final bill. I refuse to see patients that take an alternative treatment or therapy without my explicit authorization . . . "
I use the term "honest" in bringing up this last professional response, because it leaves nothing unrevealed in the motives of the practitioner, whereas the first 'non-sequitor' response does. The latter response is transparent. It's revealing. The physician might just as well have said, "Fuck you. You're here so I can make money. If you're going to go ahead and do something to help yourself -- perhaps even cure yourself, then why am I wasting my time with you? What? So you can get away with just a $50 visit and use my experience to get a diagnosis?"
At the same time -- quite paradoxically -- the most successful applications and protocols for the internal use of the escharotics I produced did not come from end user/customer/patients.
They came from practitioners -- rare souls, including M.D.'s, who risked their medical licenses by running 'evidence-based' practices that didn't mind experimenting with a proven alternative if it was safer and more efficacious.
A good example of this was a medical doctor in Chicago who used a catheter as an enema device to deliver his own diluted concoction of Cansema to specific colorectal cancer sites. It was out of this novel approach -- again, one I had never heard of before -- that we developed a suppository operation to make a suppository version of Cansema. (This was closed down shortly before the FDA raid in 2003).
Widespread reports of effective internal use of the original Cansema lead to internal versions in capsule and tonic form.
The dramatic success of Cansema led to a cornucopia of anecdotal testimonials, accessible from its product page, and the highlighting of specific cases in article form that were nothing short of miraculous, such as the case of Kent Estes (who had tongue cancer so bad that his doctors told him his only hope was to have his entire lower jaw removed), or the advanced melanoma case of R.L. Banks.


Had I been more familiar with the work of Harry Hoxsey when I first started making escharotic preparations in 1990, I would not have been surprised with my introduction to its internal uses by the woman with stomach cancer.
In time, Alpha Omega Labs would strive to educate its customers about the benefits of Hoxsey's earlier work -- natural remedies, both escharotic and non-escharotic -- by encouraging them to read his original book, You Don't Have To Die, purchase Kenny Ausubel's book (see right) and providing a free viewing of Ausubel's movie. We later added an internal version that was made by a manufacturer in Canada, and provided articles concerning its history.
Though expensive ($3,500 per patient) by the standards set by Alpha Omega Labs, the clinic in Mexico which today carries on Hoxsey's work treats cancer patients at a fraction of the cost of conventional treatment and reports results that are no worse than those obtained conventionally. (Although the testimonial section for the Center is weak, especially compared to Alpha Omega Labs' Cansema product, we attribute this far more to poor documentation than to the time-tested beneficial effects of the Hoxsey formulas themselves, which are sold at the clinic).
In the final years of Alpha Omega Labs -- before the September, 2003 raid -- I was frequently asked if the Hoxsey formulas "really worked." My reply was based on my consistent observation: "The external formula -- close as it is to Cansema itself -- works better than 95% of the time. And based on my knowledge of the internal formula [ 7 ], I have no reason to question the clinic's contention that the "success rate (is) as high as 80 percent" [ 8 ] -- that is, though it may be stretching the upper limits, it is certainly not the gross exaggeration of outcome one hears from orthodox proponents. And by contrast, you have non of the toxic side effects of conventional treatment."
Similarly, probably because of the astonishing parallels between the methods used to suppress them, I was asked about Essiac.
At Alpha Omega Labs, we never manufactured this product, and assumed that this herbal formula, promulgated to the world through a Canadian nurse, Rene Caisse, was proprietary. [ 9 ]. As it turned out, another Canadian manufacturer made the product and we carried it on our website as well. Though I was never able to obtain convincing clinical research to prove (to myself if no one else) that this product was effective in the treatment of cancer, I can attest to a substantial number of people over the years who, as in the case of Hoxsey's formulas and regimen, indicated that this approach helped or even "saved" them from the less effective, politically sanctioned treatment approaches of the orthodox medical community.
Stories about the suppression of effective herbal formulations exist in such abundance that my exploration got to the point where I was no longer surprised to hear it. When I discovered the series of events that led to the closure of Dr. Jonathan Hartwell's botanical studies group at the National Cancer Institute -- a weakly funded operation that was uncovering hundreds of promising plant-derived "medicines," I made mention of it the Alpha Omega website. At the same time I documented a suppressed, Ecuadorean herbal compound, named ammatosin that was railroaded by the same Washington bureaucrats. The same pattern of suppression was documented in the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry attempted to quash news of the cancer killing benefits of graviola (Annona muricata).


Let me confess from the outset that, based on my work with cancer patients, I did not myself find enough evidence to become convinced that apricot seeds, or the isolated nutrient from them, Vitamin B17, were as effective as most of the escharotic preparations that I worked with. I say this, even though Alpha Omega Labs sold its own packaged apricot seeds. But there are legions of recovered cancer patients who swear by them, and, in fact, a close personal friend, Jason Vale, founder of Christian Brothers (now serving a 63 month sentence in the U.S. for selling apricot seeds), was cured of his ASKINS tumor and renal cell carcinoma through an almost exclusive commitment to this approach. (He even goes so far as to provide links to his CAT scans to show his progress in defeating his cancer using apricot seeds.) Moreover, in his brief career, Jason amassed an impressive list of testimonials, comprising THOUSANDS of cancer patients who experienced substantial benefit by taking his seeds.
By the time that I decided to add apricot seeds to the Alpha Omega web site in 2002, Jason Vale was already in the crosshairs of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Therefore, the "copy" I used in presenting the seeds was decidedly restrained. My approach was to make G. Edward Griffin's video available, along with a recommendation to read his book, World Without Cancer. This would allow people to make up their own minds.
An honest government that worked as serving the interests of its citizens and not a wealthy, medical elite, would do something similarly: it would allow those who make such products available to make known the documented evidence of its "possible" benefit. It would not attempt to suppress the compelling argument that cancer is, at least in part, a nutritional "deficiency disease," and that people can be aided by the regular ingestion of fruit seeds containing specific nutrilosides, like the Vitamin B17 found in apricot seeds.
I am now of the opinion that the "nutritional deficiency" argument is sufficiency strong that there is a decided benefit to including apricot seeds in one's regular diet. But the benefit to this approach and the arguments that support it will, no doubt, continue to be suppressed.
Why?
Because, as in the case of all plant-based examples provided above, such benefits nearly always fall into the target zone of our originally stated "suppression pattern."

Horowitz ascribes "electro-suppression" as occurring for a little over a century. But the record is clear that it has been going on for much longer than that. Paracelsus' healing techniques were closely tied to subtle electromagnetic influences and their properties, though not identified as such in his time. [ 11 ] Franz Mesmer's remarkable electromedicine devices and their capabilities, dating to the 1700's, have been so well suppressed that most people associate his name exclusively with hypnotism (as in the English, "mesmerize") [ 12 ], and the medical applications of the work of Karl Von Reichenbach [ 13 ], Antonio Meucci [ 14 ], and Nikola Tesla [ 15 ], dating primarily to the 1800's, have all been subjected to the "suppression pattern."
Nonetheless, the name that is probably most synonymous with the suppression of electromedicine in the outright cure of incurable cancers in our time is Royal Raymond Rife, about whom I wrote a "quick primer" for the Alpha Omega Labs site. Excellent treatises on the pathetic treatment of Rife -- easily one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century -- at the hands of the U.S. Government medical mafia is covered extensively elsewhere [ 16 ]. It mimics the suppression of Wilhelm Reich's discoveries concerning orgone energy -- in time frame and criminal methodology. I have seen the inner-workings of this facet of the police state "up close and personal," so I recognize all the signs. In the case of Reich, his work that was considered so threatening to the medical establishment that a U.S. Federal Judge ordered not only Reich's books burned, but also other work that merely mentioned orgone energy. [ 17 ]
It is unfortunate, though probably inevitable given the nature of our culture, that Rife's name has been associated with an endless stream of questionable electronic devices, whose only connection to Rife is that he also powered his apparatus with electricity.
Such co-optation has not been so effective in dealing with devices that employ the simple schematics of Robert C. Beck. (A good friend, medical researcher, and fellow victim of the U.S. criminal justice system, Michael David Forrest, wrote a small (69 page) book -- also free of charge -- for those wanting more information on this subject, entitled, "The Investigation of Electromedicine: An Inquiry into Effectiveness of Electromedicine Devices Against Disease; The Best Electromedicine Devices Explained & Reviewed.") Nor has heavy-handed tactics prevented the results of the life-saving research of Dr. Robert O. Becker or Dr. Daniel Kirsch from getting into the hands of the public. [ 18 ]
My belief in electromedicine was greatly enhanced by two incidents that occurred in my own immediate family: the complete cure of my own father from a crippling osteo-arthritic condition he had in both his knees by the Prologue 2D, which I purchased wholesale while in Moscow, and which is a biomedical device used by quite a number of Russian physicians now. Secondly, was the cure of my own brother, Daniel, of Stage IV esophageal cancer, using Beck equipment which he modified for his own personal use, beginning with a study of Beck's electrical schematics.
Quite a number of people I have encountered over the last few years have indicated to me that on the strength of the illegitimate suppression of Beck technology alone, they have to come to a realization of most of the aspects of the suppression pattern on their own.

Shortly after I got out of U.S. Federal Prison in March, 2006, I came upon a man, Mark Krissle, who indicated that he was working with a physician in Mexico who had perfected the lost science behind Dr. William F. Koch's "glyoxylide therapy," a highly effective therapeutic approach that had "worked miracles" in a host of advanced cancer cases, an approach that I had assumed passed on when Dr. Koch himself did. [ 19 ]
The theoretical foundation to Koch's work (not to be confused with the nineteenth century physician who developed Koch's postulates) is well-understood. What plagued those who attempted to follow his work after he died is the precise method of manufacturing glyoxlide to Koch's original specifications.
What I discovered from researching Krissle's claims is that the methodology has, indeed, been kept intact. It is, however, being sequestered to keep those using and developing it out of harm's way. The group who now has Koch's technology are developing an impressive clinical record of proof to back up their future claims. They do not advertise or publicize in any way, and their funds come from very private sources. They will make their methods available to the public when the "time is right."
To the uninitiated, all this talk about superior technology (in health care, or any other field) being kept alive, out of the public domain, by a secret group of enthusiasts -- nay, I dare say "believers," may sound spurious. To those not in the know, this smacks of secret societies, unproven conspiracy theories and/or paranoid psychosis. But to those who have the Truth behind our culture's "common narrative" it is nothing if not unoriginal and commonplace.
This development, more than anything else I have been associated with, reminds me of Morris Berman's prescribed course for protecting our culture's most prized technologies from greedy, corporate powers who are determined to destroy whatever interferes with their profit agenda. More specifically, Berman talks about the need for those who find ourselves "strangers" in our own modern culture, where postmodernism has brought to the table not merely the denial of truth but also the denial of the IDEAL of truth [ 20 ], where one places his life in danger for unwittingly promulgating effective disruptive technologies that threaten establish profit models, to assist in maintaining an underground of useful technologies which will surface at the appropriate time, such as the monks of the 4th century did at the dawning of the Christian era to prevent the most valuable portions of Greco-Roman culture from dying forever.
Berman calls this course the "monastic option." [ 21 ]
The monastic option carries with it an understanding that our culture is unsustainable -- that, like similar resource-hungry, non-replenishing civilizations before it, it has an end point. It carries with it an understanding that history is not linear. It's circular. What will survive through this coming "ekpyrosis," or as William Catton would put it, this "die-off," will, in part, be determined by the various underground movements that sequester and protect sustainable technologies away from the present Elite.
In 1898 the American essayist, John Jay Chapman wrote that "business has destroyed the very knowledge in us of all other natural forces except business" (Practical Agitation). [ 22 ], This tendency to fashion all pre-approved facts through the rubric of corporate profit; to marginalize, ostracize, if not destroy all that doesn't conform to the current global fascist agenda -- and my tone will only surprise those who don't understand that corporatism and fascism are synonyms -- is what makes the monastic option a necessity.
Before I saw what had happened to Koch's work and what was being done behind the scenes -- away from the prying eyes of Western corporate spies (particularly, U.S.; more specifically, U.S. Government; more specifically still, U.S. Government acting on behalf of its corporate overlords, in this case on behalf of Orthdox Medicine) -- I had no idea the extent to which this approach was being put into practice . . . naturally, unwittingly, and without regard to any name, label, system, theoretical structure, or formal social movement.

In 2002 Alpha Omega Labs got involved with a company that was making what was reputed to be the most advanced formulas to come out of what I call "The Cancell Project," made popular by Louise B. Trull's book.
I created a web page to announce the product, its history, how it worked, etc.
Although I understand the theory behind Sheridan's formula, I myself have no idea how to manufacture it -- as I do most of the other Alpha Omega Labs' products. However, I add this item to our present chapter because, once again, we are talking about a nutritional supplement that has a long history of helping cancer patients, and those with other degenerative diseases, where the Government, acting on behalf of the Medical Industry, has placed impediments to its makers from discussing clinical results with existing and prospective customers.
Yet more evidence of "the suppression pattern."

My wife (Cathryn E. Caton, N.D.) and I dated throughout 1992 before getting married in June of the following year. There was a period there, of less than a year, where my wife maintained her apartment in Houston, while working as a lab technician for the famous cancer doctor, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.
Cathryn never worked AT the Burzynski Clinic, but rather the research and quality control department, which was housed in a separate facility.
Few phenomena within the orthodox medical community are considered as distasteful or even treacherous as a member from their own ranks coming up with a simple approach to treating cancer, who obtains results that are superior to what is officially sanctioned. It is, therefore, no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Burzynski's case that the orthodox community has labelled him a quack with false credentials, seen to it that the voluminous amount of data he has produced is written off as controversial, and prosecuted him criminally to marginalize his work in the mind of the public.
I can relate to the tribulations of Dr. Burzynski, in particular the Government's attempt to give him life imprisonment for a bogus charge of fraud (my own plea agreement had a bogus charge of mail fraud).
Despite the U.S. Government's attempt to label him a charlatan, Dr. Burzynski has repeatedly encouraged prospective patients, or even just interested parties, to "do your own research".
My wife, who in the early 90's, did have some communications with members of the Clinic, was aware of general consensus that success for patients were somewhere in the neighborhood of "60%." As with the numbers that have come out of the Hoxsey and Essiac communities (discussed above), my attitude is that even IF this figure were somewhat elevated, what justification is there for attempting to target a doctor and his clinic who is using a heavily researched treatment, persecute him for fraud charges that prosecutors know he didn't commit, and mischaracterize this non-toxic alternative which now has many hundreds of grateful, healthy patient / customers?
Again -- we see abundant signs of our "suppression pattern."


On the next page, we will address the second objective of this chapter. We will take the experiences discussed to this point and tie them together by analyzing the power of "common narrative," viewed through the prism of "whistleblowers" who have seen the Truth behind the curtain.

---

The opening quote for this chapter is taken from Vogel's American Indian Medicine, and is part of the University of Oklahoma Press's "The Civilization of American Indian Series."
One is struck by the widespread co-opting of indigenous American knowledge of the healing arts by established medicine -- including its inclusion of large numbers of medicinal herbs in early Materia Medica, only to discard this treasure trove of medicinal knowledge once more profitable pharmaceuticals were developed.
The documentation that supports this historical phenomenon is voluminous and undeniable today, but even at the Founding of the American Republic, the reigning Elite dare not admit their reliance on "Indian medicine" to treat their patients -- a fact that is rooted in the respect that early Colonists had for the healing techniques of the indigenous peoples. That physicians of that day could not even be honest with themselves is even made obvious by the writings of Dr. Benjamin Rush (one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence), who was moved to write, "We have no discoveries in the materia medica to hope for from the Indians of North America," because "it would be a reproach to our schools of physic if modern physicians were not more successful than the Indians even in the treatment of their own diseases." (p. 63) Such concern was well-founded, since it was the medical establishment that even well into the eighteenth century was still treating patients with mercury, blood-letting, and calomel -- later to be replaced by today's preferred methods of poisoning the patient : chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals, and radiation therapy.
Those who have taken the time to study the historical record understanding that modern medicine was largely the domain of "barber-surgeons" before Indian influence (p. 112). Moreover, modern pharmacology has been shown to be largely a perversion of aboriginal phytopharmacology.
Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangers of the medical establishment and his criticisms are more valid today than when he voiced them. Vogel points out that Jefferson echoed a widely held sentiment in his day when he wrote (to Dr. Caspar Wister, then professor of anatomy and surgery at the University of Pennsylvania) how he abhorred the changes in medical doctrines, "alleging that medical theories 'succeed one another like the shifting figures of a magic lattern. I believe we may safely affirm that the inexperienced and presumptious band of medical tyros let loose upon the world, destroys more of human life in one year, than all the Robinhoods, Cartouches, and Macheaths do in a century. It is in this part of medicine that I wish to see reform, an abandonment of hypothesis for sober facts, the first degree of value set on clinical observation, and the lowest on visionary theories." (p. 114)
Put more simply, Jefferson was saying, "Let's forget all this theoretical nonsense. Medicine should, first and foremost, be about what works for the patient!" To borrow a phrase from our own time, Jefferson was an advocate in the 18th century of the very thing that modern medicine fights hardest against in the 21st -- that is, clear and convincing evidence of benefit to the patient over and above the alternatives it attempts to suppress.
(Jefferson's sentiments have been echoed by many famous American intellectuals. Oliver Wendell Homes noted that the American medical mind "has clearly tended to extravagance in remedies, as in everything else." He despised its tendency towards overmedication, adding that "nature heals most diseases without help from the pharmaceutic(al) art," calling medicine "a colossal system of self-deception . . . ")


Digressing from Vogel's work for just a moment, for those who might feel agitated by Jefferson's comment or think that it doesn't bear validity on the state of health care today, I offer my next exhibit. This is an important reference because it shows the degree to which Modern Medicine is devoid of any commitment to what is "evidence-based."
The cover of the May 29, 2006 issue of Business Week announced a lead article, entitled "Medical Guesswork: From heart surgery to prostate care, the medical industry knows little about which treatments really work." (p. 73-79)
The article itself was about the findings of David Eddy (M.D.), a heart surgeon turned Ph.D. in mathematics and health care economist.

---

---

Dr. Eddy's supporters from which the medical industry itself claim that the portion of medicine that has been proven effective is still "outrageously low -- in the range of 20% to 25%." Business Week quoted Dr. Stephen C. Schoenbaum, executive vice-president of the Commonwealth Fund and former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. as stating that "We don't have the evidence [that treatments work], and we are not investing very much in getting the evidence."
Although the article emphasizes (again, quoting Dr. Eddy) that "what's required is a revolution called 'evidence-based medicine'), it isn't capable of going the extra mile to point out the obvious: it isn't possible for Modern Medicine to become 'evidence-based.' To preach this message to is demonstrate a lack of understanding about what Modern Medicine is: an organizational structure devoted to protecting higher profit therapies and treatments, while suppressing more effective, lower profit alternatives.
Modern medicine had, from its inception, this basic 'modus operandi' hard-wired into the very fabric of its being. To move in the direction of "evidence-based medicine" would destroy the very means by which Orthodox Medicine is able to fund its competitive advantage. Dr. Eddy understands what's wrong with medicine (to this extent), but he fails to understand the economic and political dynamic that is the cornerstone of the industry he works in.
To come to this understanding, he would have to be willing to step outside his industry's "common narrative." He can't do that. He's a respected physician. And respected physicians -- again -- are loath to question a system which is the very source of their respectability.
What really makes the juxtaposition of Jefferson's remarks and Eddy's findings worth investigating is how far one can investigate what's wrong with medicine, how far one can go to articulate that they really do understand the problem -- and all the while failing to see that this defect is not fixable. And why.
Since the early 1980's, Dr. David Eddy has been using this term (evidence-based medicine), and his is an extraordinary, professional journey to come to many of the very same conclusions I did without working inside orthodox medicine.
Eddy comes from a family of four generations of doctors. He went to medical school in the 1970's; "picked cardiac surgery," he admits, "because it was . . . the glamour field." He tells a story of asking questions as a young story -- questions as to what evidence existed that certain treatments really worked. This, in turn, set him on a journey where he discovered that most treatments were based on "rules and traditions," and not on scientific evidence.
Still not content with these early findings, Eddy decided to use advanced mathematics and statistics to help make treatment decisions more reliable and "help bring logic and rationality to the medical system." He went back to Stanford to get a Ph.D. in a mathematically intense Ph.D. program in the Engineering-Economics Systems Department."
While going for his Ph.D. in math, Eddy got a job working at the legendary Xerox Corp.'s Palo Alto Research Center, where he created a program to model cancer screening. His Ph.D. thesis in 1980 made front-page news. The findings? That annual chest x-rays and yearly Pap smears (for women) were a waste of money. (Again, he misses the point. They aren't a waste of money for the people who matter : those in the medical field who administer them.)
Continuing with our story of rational disconnect, Eddy won the most prestigious award in the field of operations research, the Frederick W. Lanchester prize (causing the American Cancer Society to slightly alter its guidelines). Later he was appointed a full professor at Stanford, followed by an appointment as chairman of the Center for Health Policy Research & Education at Duke University. Over the past 26 years he has -- repeatedly, passionately, compellingly, and over a broad range of ailments, shown that medicine -- more times than not -- acts not in accordance with what is best for the patient, but what is best for those who provide treatment.
But, again, he cannot confront the obvious. He cannot breach the very cornerstone of modern medicine: that it is born of exploitation, of political and economic assymetry between doctor and patient, of monopolistic opportunism and captive markets, of medical tax collector and victim. If Eddy's advice were every embraced by orthodox medicine, it would surely crash under the weight of its own inherent inability to provide what is in the best interest of the public's health. Modern medicine is, therefore, non-reformable; because the extinguishment of corrective feedback loops is built into the very fabric of its existence. It it were ever "evidence-based," it wouldn't be conventional medicine as we know it. It would be an entity we would scarcely recognize.
These are lines that Dr. Eddy simply cannot cross.

"I endorse this therapy even today for I have, in fact, cured my own cancer, the original site of which was the lower bowel, through Essiac alone." (p. 2)
So wrote Dr. Charles Brusch, M.D., the personal physician of U.S. President John F. Kennedy -- but then he was only one of many thousands of patients who claimed that Essiac cured their cancer. This should strike few as surprising. Its primary ingredients show a remarkable similarity to Hoxsey's [in the case of Essiac, it is burdock (Arctium lappa), sheep sorrel (Acetosella vulgaris), turkey rhubarb (Rheum palmatum), and slippery elm (Ulmus fulva), p. 45-54] in terms of its underlying botanically-based nutrients.
Nurse Caisse, the Canadian nurse who took this old Ojibwa Indian formula and made it popular, claimed a success rate of close to 80% -- the same figure used by Nurse Mildred Nelson, who ran the "Hoxsey" clinic in Mexico for many years.
If actual success rates were even half this and a critical mass of patients in the West were aware of its benefits over the dismal rates of high-cost, conventional therapies, it would cause the collapse of a huge sector within the billion dollar "disease care" industry throughout the First World.
The governments of this World who are married to these powerful interests have so constructed political, economic, educational, and mass communications within society to ensure that this doesn't happen. So the medical "killing fields" continue unabated.

If there is no evidence that cancer is (at least in part) a nutritional deficiency disease, then why go to so much trouble to suppress the findings?
Does the answer have anything to do with the fact that if existing nutritional regimen were discovered that be effective in the treatment of cancer, and a critical mass of the citizenry were to discover this, the economic collapse of an entire trillion dollar health care system might ensue?
Even though laetrile and other forms of Vitamin B17 therapies don't work for a substantial number of cancer patients, there is sufficient benefit to a large enough number that patients should be encouraged to example this option.
If even one patient in ten obtains relief, the Public should be made aware of it. As it is, Jason Vale documented a much higher percentage.
The response from the medical community and the mobsters who do their bidding at the Food & Administration?
Send him to prison!

I discuss Wilhelm Reich and orgone energy elsewhere in this book, but I quote from James DeMeo's book in this chapter. It is one of the few simple, easy-to-read instruction manuals that show you how to make your own orgone accumulator.
I recommend this book because it includes a quick, historical summary of Reich's work and life, which ended in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary, where "he died in 1957. His death is prison occurred two weeks prior to his parole date, at a time when he was happily anticipating his freedom, and a life in Switzerland with is new wife." (p. 7).
James T. Kimball documents torture and killings in the Federal penal system, and based on what I saw in Beaumont myself, I have no doubt that select inmates are targeted for extermination.
Though nearly 50 years ago now, it is easy to see that since little has changed, there is no reason to believe that a high probability does not exist that Wilhelm Reich was not subjected to the highest level of suppression.
He was assassinated.

. . . and while we're on the subject of suppressed electromedicine (Wilhelm Reich gets coverage in this volume, too -- starting on page 57; as does Rife, p. 51), it is amazing the number of unread books that recount the amazing techniques that have been carefully documented that provide, in each of their respective niches, a measure of health benefit -- at a much lower cost -- than their conventional medical equivalence.
A good example of this is the 1966 release by Mark L. Gallert (M.D., M.Sc.), entitled, New Light on Therapeutic Energies.
One of the more amazing stores in this work, which I had not seen well-documented elsewhere, concerned Dinshah Ghadiali and his use of Chromo-Therapy. Those who are familiar with color therapy know well its healing properties, which, in the modern era were first made popular in 1877 with the publishing of Blue and Red Light, or Light and Its Rays as Medicine. But it was Ghadiali who took compiled decades of research on light therapy and published -- in three volumes, no less -- his Spectro-Chrome-Metry Encyclopedia in 1933, now out of print and extremely rare. Dinshah taught color therapy to thousands, including many doctors, and developed various types of color-lamp equipment on which he obtained U.S. patents.
Modern medicine doesn't mind using sections of the Electromagnetic scale above and below visible light to burn and radiate their patients at high cost, but it won't allow the public to be educated in the very inexpensive way in which non-toxic VISIBLE light rays can be used to heal.
The biggest reason for having Ghadiali's work suppressed, however, was the devastating implications of his conclusions. All visible colors have a vibratory rate in the range of 436 to 731 trillion oscillations per second. All elements (including, obviously, those making up the human body) have spectral lines within that range, as well. Ghadiali was able to show that it is preferable to apply the color rays representative of chemicals rather than to treat with the chemicals or elements themselves in pharmaceutical form.
His arguments were well-thought out and compelling: "Thousands of drugs are used in medical practice. Is it wise to dump so many into the human body when they were not included in the natural composition of the body? . . . For example, there is no perceptible quantity of mercury in the human composition, yet this poison is administered in large quantities by doctors for syphilis and other ailments [editor: since Ghadiali's time, mercury has been primarily restricted to the amalgam used by dentists] . . . Medicine ignores wholesale, the fundamental chemistry of the human body -- pouring into it many drugs containing compounds not found in the body, or in quantities far in excess of their natural proportion in the body. No part, not built for functioning in a machine, can be shackled into it without upsetting its rhythm. Chemicals are live potencies; their atoms have attractions and repulsions, and to endeavor to introduce haphazard inorganic metals into an organic machine, is like feeding a baby with steel tacks to make it strong."
With a combined punch, exposing the cracks in the very foundations of modern pharmacology, together with a cheap therapeutic approach that effectively treated a host of ailments, the medical Elite made sure that Ghadiali was relegated to the dustbin of history . . .

Home Top of Page Top of Footnotes
Back to Chapter 3 Table of Contents Chapter 4, Section 2