* Co-doctoring — always necessary
* Money and the cancer “business”
* Diet and cancer prevention

Co-doctoring — always necessary

A ton of information has come across my desk since the last
newsletter. One recurring theme is the need for you to
inform yourself if you or a loved one has cancer.

As I mentioned in the book, I have known many doctors — 200
plus or minus. About 10 of them have been family members or
close friends. Without exception, they have tried to do
what’s best for their patients. They were hardly foolproof.

You need to understand the environment in which your doctor
works. Bombarded daily by drug salesmen, all leaving them
free samples to give away. Pressured by our system of HMO
scrutiny of their every move and hemmed in by ever-tighter
specialization, they are fighting to keep up with the
explosion of information in their own specialty. You and I
cannot realistically expect them to have even sketchy know-
ledge of the type of alternative cancer cures and the
research behind them I covered in the book.

The drug money in this country continues to dominate our
medical system. Two things happened on the same day this
week which illuminated this fact. Secretary of Health and
Human Services Donna Shalala stopped implementation of the
bill allowing pharmacies to reimport drugs from Canada and
Mexico. I mentioned this bill in the book. It was passed
by Congress and signed by President Clinton about two
months ago. It allowed pharmacies to purchase drugs
produced in the U.S. from foreign sources when those drugs
were being sold for much lower prices in the foreign
country. Drug company pressure on Secretary Shalala shut
down this benefit for consumers for “safety” reasons. If
you are naive enough to believe this, you haven’t been
paying attention.

On the same day this week, the newspaper carried a long
story from the Los Angeles Times by David Willman. The
article entitled “New FDA policy resulted in seven deadly
drugs” described how easier FDA standards on drug approval
were prescribed by Congress in 1993. After a two-year
investigation, the L.A. Times reported that in “adverse
event” reports filed with the FDA, the seven drugs were
cited as suspects in 1,002 deaths. Because the deaths
are reported by doctors, hospitals and others on a
voluntary basis, the true number of deaths could be much
higher, according to epidemiologists.

The seven drugs — Lotronex, Rezulin, Posicor, Redux,
Rotashield, Propulsid and Raxar — are among the hundreds
of new drugs approved by the FDA since 1993. A telling
statistic: these seven drugs alone generated $5 billion
in U.S. sales before they were pulled from the market by
the FDA. Another interesting statistic: in 1988, only 4
percent of new drugs introduced into the world market
were approved first by the FDA. In 1998, the FDA’s
first-in-the-world approvals spiked to 66 percent.

Once the world’s unrivaled safety leader, the FDA was the
last to withdraw several new drugs in the late 1990s that
were banned by health authorities in Europe.

“This track record is totally unacceptable,” said Dr. Curt
Furberg, a professor of public health sciences at Wake
Forest University. “The patients are the ones paying the
price. They’re the ones developing all the side effects,
fatal and non-fatal. Someone has to speak for them.”

It’s not that doctors didn’t speak up against these drugs.
“They’ve lost their compass and they forget who it is that
they are ultimately serving,” said Dr. Lemuel Moye, a
University of Texas School of Public Health physician who
served from 1995 to 1999 on an FDA advisory committee.
“Unfortunately, the public pays for this, because the
public believes that the FDA is watching the door, that
they are the sentry.”

The FDA’s shift is felt directly in the private practice
of medicine, said Dr. William Isley, a Kansas City,
Missouri diabetes specialist. He implored the agency to
reassess Rezulin three years ago after a patient he treated
suffered liver failure taking the pill.

“FDA used to serve a purpose,” Isley said. “A doctor could
feel sure that a drug he was prescribing was as safe as
possible. Now you wonder what kind of evaluation has been
done, and what’s been swept under the rug.”

The FDA’s response? “All drugs have risks; most of them
have serious risks,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of
the FDA’s drug-review center. Once a drug is proven
effective and safe, Woodcock says, the FDA depends on
doctors “to take into account the risks, to read the
label…We have to rely on the practitioner community to
be the learned intermediary. That’s why drugs are pre-
scription drugs.”

Dr. Woodcock alluded in a recent interview to the difficulty
she feels in rejecting a proposed drug that might have cost
a company $150 million or more to develop.

A doctor friend of mine says the lawyers are licking their
chops about stories like the above. Could be. Or maybe
it’s just professional jealousy. (;-))

Do you see how important it is to “second guess” your doctor?
Question everything. If you or your loved one are being pre-
scribed a medication (chemotherapy included), ALWAYS ask to
see the statistical studies and warning labels which are
required to be read by physicians. Obviously, they don’t
have the time to study them all. You MUST take the time.
Your life or your loved one’s life may be in danger.

And finally, I cannot leave this subject without reminding
you to read some background material on “natural” substances
which just might cure your cancer without any of the risky
and toxic chemicals being recommended by your oncologist.
Start with my book, but PLEASE read some of the references.
Go to some of the websites I recommend in the Appendix. If
you need it, the e-book is still available at:


Find out what other opinions are available to you. All it
costs you is time and maybe a few dollars for a couple of
books. And don’t hold your breath for the National
Institutes of Health or any other government or quasi-gov-
ernment agency to undertake definitive studies on cancer
cures like MGN-3 or Laetrile. They have had over 26 years
to do it since Laetrile first became well-known and was
black-balled by the drug industry using a manufactured
scare story about cyanide. Don’t be deprived of your right
to information.

Money and the cancer “business”

A perfect case study of the propaganda machine which pushes
new drugs on the public is tamoxifen. It is a synthetic
hormone used in breast cancer chemotherapy.

When tamoxifen was first released in 1998, it was touted to
the public with tremendous media hype as a preventative for
breast cancer. In early April, the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) held an unprecedented news conference. At that confer-
ence, Dr. Bernard Fisher, the lead author of the big study
on tamoxifen, boldly announced, “This is now the first study
in the world to show that a drug can reduce the incidence of
breast cancer.”

Only one problem. Four years earlier, the FDA issued a
damning press release of its own. The document informed
380,000 oncologist and health care professionals that a
stronger warning label would be required for the drug, due
to its tendency to cause cancer.

Then FDA Commissioner David Kessler noted that it was
“important for women to recognize that there are side effects
including an increased risk of uterine cancer.” How much
risk? A Swedish study with almost 1,400 patients found that
uterine cancer jumped a colossal 575%. (Another tamoxifen
study indicated a similar spike with the same cancer.)
Furthermore, the tumors were much more frequently “high
grade,” according to a study published in the Journal of
Clinical Oncology in March of 1994.

Tibor J. Hegedus, PhD, in his book “Indicted: Cancer Research,”
writes that tamoxifen does indeed block a cancer-promoting
hormone present in breast tissue, “..but when the hormones
are blocked from reaching the primary targets, they are forced
to travel to other organs.”

Seventeen British researchers also criticized the $65 million
NCI-funded study for stopping 14 months early. “I think there
has been a significant overreaction,” stated London’s Trevor
Powles, M.D., who led the first study of the preventive effects
of tamoxifen.

The NCI study’s early release coincided with the first week of
the American Cancer Society’s annual fund drive. This was not
the first time the two organizations spouted “good news” in
the weeks leading up to this fund drive.

Tamoxifen, by the way, is still used today for “treating”
breast cancer. This is like playing Russian roulette —
except with an automatic instead of a revolver.

Remember in my book, Dr. Moss’s discovery that the Memorial
Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute, for which he worked, had
been touting cancer “breakthroughs” for fifty years or so,
all with the objective of raising money for more studies. Also,
remember that despite the $50 billion “War on Cancer” since
1974, rates of cancer death among adults are now much higher
than they were then.

Diet and cancer prevention

Ironically, at the same time as the above “news” was being
hyped — in April, 1998 — a study by researchers at the
Wayne Hughes Institute in St. Paul, Minnesota reported their
results with a new treatment they call “EGF-Genistein.”

According to their study published in Clincal Cancer Research,
Genistein actually reversed human breast cancer in mice and
was found to be safe in small animals and monkeys. What is
Genistein? It’s found in soy (soybean products) – tofu, soy
milk, soy flour etc. (but not soy sauce). Could this be why
breast cancer is rare in Oriental women (unless they live in
the U.S. and eat our diet)?

Genistein is an isofalvone with steroid-like properties.
Another study by Dr. Walter Troll at the NY University Medical
Center showed breast cancer incidence in mice was reduced by
50% using Genistein. Another study by Dr. Coral A. Lamar-
tiniere of the University of Alabama found the incidence of
mammary tumors in mice were reduced by 40%. He told an NCI
symposium, “This study is the first to show in vivo that
Genistein can protect against chemically induced cancer.”

The same mechanism found in breast cancer cells is also seen
in prostate, ovarian, bladder, liver, lung and melanoma
cancers. Thus, the researchers believe that Genistein will
also be effective against those cancers as well. In fact,
Memorial Sloan Kettering researcher William Fair, M.D., is
now studying Genistein and other nutrients in a clinical
trial on prostate cancer at the normally conservative and
conventional NYC institution. Remember how many drug company
executives are on the Sloan Kettering Board of Directors?

Further, Dr. Karl Folkers of the University of Texas and a
team of researchers in Europe reported that changes in diet
and a specific list of nutrients eliminated breast cancer
and prevented its recurrence. They called it the “Stock-
holm Protocol.”

If you are interested in information about diet, nutrition
and the Stockholm Protocol, you need to join Peopla Against
Cancer. Check out their very interesting website at:


Incidentally, these diets are not just for prevention. They
are also for treatment of active cancers.

If you’d like another slant on this subject, take a look at
Diana Dyer’s website. It’s at:


Diana self-published her 54-page cancer and nutrition booklet
in 1997. It’s called “A Dietician’s Cancer Story.” It is
now the best-selling cancer and nutrition book on amazon.com.

The former hospital dietician decided to learn everything she
could about cancer and nutrition after a 1995 breast cancer
diagnosis. Then she began testing recipes to see how real-
istic they were. She developed dozens of healthful, easy-
to-fix meals. Particularly popular are her “SuperSoy” and
“PhytoChemical” shakes.

Dyer, a mother of two, credits the diet and daily exercise
with keeping her free of cancer for the past five years.
She has set up an endowment with proceeds from the booklet
to help underwrite research about how good nutrition can
prevent the recurrence of cancer.

For the full story of this remarkable lady, check out the
website above.


Bill Henderson

As for the legal stuff — Disclaimer: The author of this
newsletter is a researcher and writer, not a doctor. Any
treatment for an illness should be shared with your doctor
before you attempt it.