In the second part of startling truths about chemotherapy, Dr. Vernon Coleman highlights that chemotherapy is often recommended because of financial interests, with drug companies, cancer charities and doctors profiting from it, despite its potentially lethal side effects.

The serious side effects of chemotherapy are admitted by the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, which advises doctors to limit chemotherapy and use it only for relatively healthy patients as it can weaken and even kill patients, especially those who are already in poor health.  This is ironic as many patients with cancer simply aren’t fit enough to be treated with chemotherapy.

You can read Part One HERE.

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Drug companies, cancer charities and doctors recommend chemotherapy because there is big money in it. The least forgivable of these are the cancer charities which exist to protect people but which seem to me to be ruthless exploiters of patients.

As always, the medical literature is confusing but in the Annals of Oncology I found this: “The upfront use of chemotherapy does not seem to influence the overall outcome of the disease.”

Most doctors won’t tell you this, or even admit it to themselves, but cancer drugs are killing up to 50% of patients in some hospitals. A study by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK, which was published in The Lancet, found that 2.4% of breast cancer patients die within a month of starting chemotherapy. The figures are even worse for patients with lung cancer, where 8.4% of patients die within a month when treated with chemotherapy. When patients die that quickly, I feel that it is safe to assume that they were killed by the treatment, not the disease. At one hospital, the death rate for patients with lung cancer treated with chemotherapy was reported at over 50%. The one-month mortality rate in one group of teaching hospitals was 28% for patients receiving palliative care for lung cancer. One in five breast cancer patients in another group of hospitals died from their treatment. Naturally, all the hospitals which took part in the study insisted that chemotherapy prescribing was being done safely. If we accept this, then we must also question the validity of chemotherapy. The study showed that the figures are particularly bad for patients who are in poor general health when they start treatment. The problem, of course, is that chemotherapy does not differentiate between healthy cells and cancerous cells, and the cell-destroying properties of chemotherapy can be lethal. One senior oncologist said: “I think it’s important to make patients aware that there are potentially life-threatening downsides to chemotherapy. And doctors should be more careful about who they treat with chemotherapy.” Sadly, I fear that most doctors do not share full details of the risks associated with chemotherapy, and a good number of patients take chemotherapy thinking that the only downside will be a short-term loss of their hair. This, in truth, is the least of the problems associated with these drugs.

A study published in JAMA Oncology studied the use of chemotherapy among 312 terminally ill cancer patients. All 312 patients had been given no more than six months to live by their doctors and all had at least one, and in some cases, multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which had failed. Their tumours had, despite the chemotherapy, spread to other parts of their body. And yet half of these patients were on chemotherapy, despite its obvious ineffectiveness. The analysis published in JAMA Oncology showed that these patients were worse off than if they hadn’t had treatment. Their quality of life was less than it would have been without chemotherapy. The patients on chemotherapy were less able to walk, take care of themselves and stay active than the patients not taking chemotherapy. Most surprising was the fact that the patients who were feeling the best at the start of their chemotherapy were the ones who ended up feeling the worst; they were the ones who suffered the most. The chemotherapy consequences for those patients had been to make their lives worse without any benefit.

Other studies have shown the same thing. Chemotherapy in terminally ill patients is essentially ineffective. Any tumour shrinkage (a rare occurrence) was not linked to a longer life.

As a result of all this research, the American Society of Clinical Oncologists has advised doctors to be more judicious with their chemotherapy use in terminal patients. The group’s guidelines recommend limiting the use of chemotherapy to relatively healthy patients who can withstand the toxic effects and, hopefully, overcome the awful side effects.

The sad thing is that many cancer patients still believe that more and more rounds of chemotherapy will be of benefit to them. The truth is that patients with end-stage cancer who are still relatively healthy will be made weaker by chemotherapy and will spend much of their remaining time travelling to and from hospital. It really is vital that patients be informed about the real risks of chemotherapy and that they should be involved in making decisions about their treatment. Chemotherapy is so toxic that the chances of a patient surviving treatment depend a good deal on their age and general well-being. Patients who are seriously ill are, it seems, more likely to die as a result of chemotherapy. (There is no little irony in the fact that many patients with cancer simply aren’t fit enough to be treated with chemotherapy. And, of course, the people who don’t have cancer don’t need it.)

In America, huge numbers of patients are forced to undergo chemotherapy at the State’s behest, even when patients and relatives object. So, for example, a 17-year-old diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma decided to seek alternatives to chemotherapy but her doctors were so convinced by the Big Pharma propaganda that they contacted family services who kidnapped the young adult and had her placed in foster care. She was only allowed to go home once she had agreed to have the chemotherapy, though she ran away. The Supreme Court in the US ruled that the State was in the right and had the authority to kidnap the patient, force her into treatment against her will and deny her contact with her family.

Next, think about this.

In the UK, the National Health Service publishes comprehensive guidelines on what must be done if chemotherapy drugs are spilt. There are crisis emergency procedures to be followed if chemotherapy drugs fall on the floor. And yet, these drugs are put into people’s bodies. And residues of these dangerous chemicals are excreted in urine and then end up in the drinking water supply. (I explained several decades ago in my books ‘Meat causes Cancer’ and ‘Superbody’ how prescription drug residues end up in our drinking water.)

It is hardly surprising that many patients being treated with chemotherapy report that their quality of life has plummeted.

The standard oncology approach to cancer is to give chemotherapy and then wait and see if the cancer returns. If it does, then more chemotherapy is prescribed. The tragedy is that for so many patients, chemotherapy will do more harm than good. Astonishingly, a quarter of cancer patients die of heart attacks – often triggered by deep vein thrombosis and by emboli and brought on by the physical stress of chemotherapy. But these deaths are not included in the official statistics – either for cancer or, just as importantly, for chemotherapy. It is no exaggeration to say that the establishment fiddles the figures to suit its own largely commercial ends – extolling the virtues of drug company products at every opportunity and never failing to throw doubt on any remedy which might threaten the huge cancer industry.

Here’s another thing you might not know.

During the lockdowns and concerns about covid-19, patients who were on chemotherapy were taken off their treatment. They were told that since their treatment would affect their immune systems, they would be more vulnerable to the coronavirus. That’s an important admission because the one thing we know for certain is that a healthy immune system is vital for fighting cancer.

Doctors probably won’t tell you any of this but they won’t deny it because it is all true.

The bottom line is that treatments described in clinical trials, paid for by drug companies and generally reviewed by doctors with drug company links, and then published in medical journals which accept huge amounts of drug company advertising, are the only treatments the medical profession accepts. There is much talk about “peer review” trials but all this means is that another doctor or two, with drug company links, will have looked at the paper and given it their approval.

The word “corrupt” doesn’t come close to describing this whole incestuous system.

Anyone who wants to have chemotherapy should have it. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from using whatever drugs they believe might help them. I’m only interested in providing unbiased, independent information which might help patients make the right decision for themselves.

But too often, I fear, patients beg for treatment, completely understandably, because they want something to be done and because they have been misled by the drug company inspired, and paid for, hype about chemotherapy. And doctors provide that treatment, even though a little research would tell them that they may be doing more harm than good. There are a very few cancers which can be treated well with chemotherapy – but they are very few, and they are unfairly and unreasonably promoted as success stories by the drug companies and their shills.

The thing that is forgotten or ignored is that chemotherapy can badly damage the patient’s body’s own protections – and with some patients may, therefore, do infinitely more harm than good.

Every patient should decide for themselves – and discuss with their doctors the evidence for and against chemotherapy in their situation. But I think that all patients are entitled to be provided with the background information they would need to help that process of assessment.

Tragically, however, the ignorance about chemotherapy is, sadly, widespread and all-pervasive.

How many women with breast cancer realise that their survival chances might be better if they took daily aspirin and avoided dairy products than if they accepted chemotherapy?

Doctors don’t tell them that because they have, as a profession, been bought by the pharmaceutical industry.

From time to time, there are news stories in the papers about women who say “No, thank you” when offered chemotherapy. The response from the medical profession, the media and the public is inevitably critical and often abusive. When one young mother refused chemotherapy, doctors at the hospital which was supposedly caring for her refused to operate on her or provide her with any other care.

I remember one recent story about another young woman who refused chemotherapy and was told by her local hospital that if she didn’t have chemotherapy, then she couldn’t have surgery. So, the young woman gave up meat and she and her husband spent all their savings (a total of £70,000) on trying a variety of alternative treatments – none of which worked. The young woman is now dead, leaving behind a penniless husband and a young daughter. What astonished me was the nature of the heartless comments on the internet. They were, without exception, sneery and critical and naturally, most of them were anonymous. None understood or even cared about the pain the poor woman and her family were going through – and I suspect that few, if any, of the comments were from critics who had studied the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy. I wonder how many of those who scoffed know that chemotherapy designed for the treatment of cancer, is an attempt to poison cancer cells which grow rapidly. However, it also destroys healthy cells in the bone marrow and can damage all the organs of the body. Chemotherapy often kills more people than it saves. How many of those who defend chemotherapy know that chemotherapy can seriously damage the immune system – thereby making the patient very vulnerable to infection? And I wonder how many of those know-it-alls understand that chemotherapy can cause cancer cells to mutate and become more resistant and difficult to destroy.

Brave individuals who stand up to those who are pushing chemotherapy are often accused of ignorance or cowardice when, in reality, the opposite is true. It takes real strength of mind to stand up to doctors, nurses, relatives and friends who insist (usually because they’ve never bothered to do any research) that chemotherapy is safe and effective. It is sometimes said that those who reject chemotherapy do so because they are frightened of losing their hair. This is hideously insulting. Hair grows back, and I very much doubt if more than a tiny number of people reject chemotherapy because they are worried about hair loss. (Incidentally, supporters of chemotherapy might like to ask themselves which invisible cells are being damaged at the same time as hair cells are suffering. Hair loss is merely a superficial, observable sign of the damage that is being done and which is largely invisible.)

In September 2024, a former model called Elle Macpherson revealed that seven years earlier, she had refused to undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer despite the advice of 32 doctors. When she revealed this news, she was in “clinical remission.”

“Saying ‘No’ to standard medical solutions was the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life,” she said. “But saying no to my own inner sense would have been even harder.”

Inevitably, the corporate media reporting of Miss Macpherson’s decision was often accompanied by articles written in support of chemotherapy. “It goes without saying that if you are diagnosed with cancer, it is wise to stick to medical advice,” said a journalist (without medical qualifications) in The Times of London. Fair enough. But what if the medical advice is wrong?

Note: The essay above is taken from `What doctors won’t tell you about chemotherapy’ by Vernon Coleman. To purchase a copy CLICK HERE.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/04/12/startling-truths-about-chemotherapy-part-two/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Startling Truths about Chemotherapy (Part Two) appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Chemotherapy may only improve a patient’s chances of survival by 3-5%, with some studies suggesting as little as 2.5% for breast cancer patients.

The treatment can cause significant damage to healthy cells, the immune system and other parts of the body, leading to severe side effects and even death.

Dr. Vernon Coleman believes that the cancer industry, including drug companies and some cancer charities, prioritises profits over patient care and that the benefits of chemotherapy are often exaggerated while its risks are downplayed.

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Over the years, I have repeatedly found that all medical recommendations are best treated with a large dose of scepticism.  Nowhere is this more true than in the treatment of cancer.

Patients who are diagnosed with cancer find themselves in a state of shock. And yet, while in a state of shock, they find themselves needing to make a number of vital decisions very quickly.

One of the big questions is often this one: “Should I have chemotherapy?”

Chemotherapy (or “systemic anticancer treatment”) might improve a patient’s chances of survival by three to five per cent, though that modest figure is usually over generous. For example, the evidence suggests that chemotherapy offers breast cancer patients an uplift in survival of little more than 2.5%.

When you consider that chemotherapy can kill and does terrible damage to healthy cells, and to the immune system, it is difficult to see the value of taking chemotherapy.

I don’t think it is any exaggeration to suggest that much of the hype around chemotherapy has taken the treatment into the area of fraud – far more fraudulent indeed than treatments which are dismissed as irrelevant or harmful by the establishment.

Chemotherapy is a cull, designed by the conspirators and the medical establishment to cut the cost of caring for cancer patients.

The chances are that the doctors looking after you – especially the specialist oncologists in hospital – will recommend chemotherapy. They may push hard to accept their recommendation. They may even be cross or dismissive or assume you are ignorant or afraid if you decide you don’t want it. Cancer charities often shout excitedly about chemotherapy. But they are also often closely linked to the drug companies which make money out of chemotherapy – which, in my view, makes them part of the large and thriving “cancer industry.” It is important to remember that drug companies exist to make money and they will do whatever is necessary to further this aim. They lie and they cheat with scary regularity and they have no interest in helping patients or saving lives. Remember that: the sole purpose of drug companies is to make money, whatever the human cost might be. They will happily suppress potentially life-saving information if doing so increases their profits. It is my belief that by allying themselves with drug companies, cancer charities have become corrupt.

Little or no advice is given to patients about how they themselves might reduce the risk of their cancer returning. The implication is that it’s chemotherapy or nothing. So, for example, doctors are unlikely to tell breast cancer patients that they should avoid dairy foods, though the evidence that they should is very strong.

The one certainty is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone you see will tell you all the truths about chemotherapy. The sad truth is that the statistics about chemotherapy are, of course, fiddled to boost the drug company sales and, therefore, drug company profits. And the deaths caused by chemotherapy are often misreported or underestimated. So, for example, if a patient who has been taking chemotherapy dies of a sudden heart attack, their death will probably be put down as a heart attack – rather than as a result of the cancer or the chemotherapy. There may be some mealy-mouthed suggestion that the death was treatment related but the drug will probably not be named and shamed. Neither the chemotherapy nor the cancer will be deemed responsible. What this means in practice is that the survival statistics for chemotherapy are considerably worse than the figures which are made available – considerably worse, indeed, than whatever positive effect might be provided by a harmless placebo.

Here’s another thing: patients who have chemotherapy and survive five years are counted as having been cured by chemotherapy. And patients who have chemotherapy and then die five and a bit years after their diagnosis don’t count as cancer-related deaths. And they certainly don’t count as chemotherapy deaths.

A 2016 academic study looked at five-year survival rates and concluded that in 90% of patients (including the commonest breast cancer tumours), chemotherapy increased five-year survival by less than 2.5%. Only a very small number of cancers (such as testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease) were treated effectively by chemotherapy.

On top of this dismal success rate, it must be remembered that chemotherapy cripples the immune system (now, at long last, recognised as important in the fight against cancer), damages all living cells, damages the intestines, can cause nausea and tinnitus, can damage nerves, can and does damage the bone marrow with the result that leukaemia develops, (staggeringly, iatrogenic myeloid leukaemia, usually known as “therapy related” in an attempt to distance the disease from doctors, is, in ten per cent of cases, a result of chemotherapy), damages the heart and the hearing and will, in a significant number of patients, result in death.

Staggeringly, 25% of cancer patients die of heart attacks – often triggered by deep vein thrombosis and by emboli and brought on by the physical stress of chemotherapy. These deaths are not included in the official statistics – either for cancer or, just as importantly, for chemotherapy. It is no exaggeration to say that the establishment fiddles the figures to suit its own largely commercial ends – extolling the virtues of drug company products at every opportunity and never failing to throw doubt on any remedy which might threaten the industry-charity axis of the huge cancer industry.

It is true that chemotherapy may reduce the size of a tumour but in stage 4 cancer, chemotherapy seems to encourage a cancer to return more quickly and more aggressively. The cancer stem cells seem to be untouched by the chemotherapy drugs.

Despite all this, the protocol in the treatment of cancer is to turn to chemotherapy, and doctors are always reluctant to try anything else.

The Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, which represents 24 Royal Colleges and a number of other important health bodies, has reported that chemotherapy can do more harm than good when prescribed as palliatives for terminally ill cancer patients. The colleges criticise chemotherapy advocates for “raising false hopes” and doing “more harm than good.” They concluded that chemotherapy drugs are unlikely to work.

A paper published in BMC Palliative Care in 2022 concluded that: “Chemotherapy use closer to the end of life is a marker of poor-quality care.” Of a total of 681 patients who were given chemotherapy, nearly a fifth died within 30 days after chemotherapy. The authors said in their conclusion: “Administration of chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life could cause unnecessary suffering to patients and cost to society. Early referral to palliative care was significantly associated with reduced risk of getting chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life in this study.” The authors pointed out that although many oncologists were reluctant to prescribe chemotherapy at the end of life, a patient’s decision would depend on the clarity of the information he or she received.

A study from France showed that patients who died in for-profit hospitals, comprehensive cancer centres and centres without palliative care had greater than average use of chemotherapy near the end of life.

On the other hand, I wasn’t surprised to see a big cancer charity disagreeing with the 24 medical colleges and claiming that thousands of patients do benefit. My view, which I recognise is probably not shared by the majority of family doctors or oncologists, is that many cancer charities around the world are the unacceptable face of cancer care. It seems to me that some charities appear to be more concerned with making money and keeping the drug companies happy and rich than in caring for patients.

Another report has concluded that chemotherapy can, in some circumstances, actually promote the spread of cancer cells. It was reported in 2017, for example, that when breast cancer patients have chemotherapy before surgery, the drug can make the malignant cells spread to distant sites – resulting in metastatic cancer and sending the patient straight from Stage 1 to Stage 4.

Scientists analysed tissue from 20 breast cancer patients who had 16 weeks of chemotherapy, and the tissues around the tumour were more conducive to spread in most of the patients. In five of the patients, there was a five times greater risk of spread. In none of the patients was the tissue around the tumour less friendly to cancer cells and to metastasis. The problem, it seems, is that cancer cells have a great ability to transform themselves and the chemotherapy, designed to kill cancer cells, may encourage the development of cells which are resistant to drugs, which survive the treatment and which form a new cancer.

The one side effect associated with chemotherapy that is widely known is the loss of hair. But that is, to be honest, the least of the problems. Chemotherapy kills healthy cells as well as cancer cells, and the severity of the side effects depends on the age and health of the patient as well as on the type of drug used and the dosage in which it is prescribed. And whereas some side effects do disappear after treatment (as the good cells recover) there are some side effects which may never go away.

I mentioned the serious side effects a little earlier but here, as a reminder, is a list of just some of the problems that can be caused by chemotherapy drugs:

The cells in the bone marrow can be damaged, producing a shortage of red blood cells and possibly leukaemia.

The central nervous system can be damaged with a result that the memory may be affected and the patient’s ability to concentrate or think clearly changed. There may be changes to balance and coordination. These effects can last for years. Apart from affecting the brain, chemotherapy can also cause pain and tingling in the hands and feet, numbness, weakness and pain. Not surprisingly, depression is not uncommon.

The digestive system is commonly affected with sores forming in the mouth and throat. These may produce infection and may make food taste unpleasant. Nausea and vomiting may also occur. The weight loss associated with chemotherapy may be a result of a loss of appetite.

In addition to hair loss (which can affect hair all over the body) the skin may be irritated and nails may change colour and appearance.

The kidneys and bladder may be irritated and damaged. The result may be swollen ankles, feet and hands.

Osteoporosis is a fairly common problem and increases the risk of bone fractures and breaks. Women who have breast cancer and who are having treatment to reduce their oestrogen levels are particularly at risk.

Chemotherapy can produce hormone changes with a wide variety of symptoms.

The heart may be damaged and patients who already have weak hearts may be made worse by chemotherapy.

And the other problem with chemotherapy is that it can damage the immune system.

And it is known that chemotherapy can damage DNA.

Does chemotherapy alter the nature of cancer cells? Can it, for example, trigger a change from an oestrogen sensitive cancer cell to a triple negative cell – much harder to treat?

Remember, there is that risk that chemotherapy might spread cells around the body.

And finally, there is increasing evidence to show that chemotherapy may hasten the death of a number of patients.

Note: The above is taken from `What doctors won’t tell you about chemotherapy’ by Vernon Coleman. To purchase a copy CLICK HERE. Part two of this essay should appear tomorrow.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/04/10/startling-truths-about-chemotherapy/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Startling Truths about Chemotherapy (Part One) appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The media (persuaded by the drug industry and the medical establishment which are, sadly, much the same thing) often seems to believe that chemotherapy is the only way to treat cancer. They may be rich and powerful but they’re wrong.

And charities, which supposedly exist to care for patients, are too often simply part of the cancer industry, beholden to the international pharmaceutical companies which make billions out of selling drugs. In the global cancer industry, the charities largely provide marketing and public relations services while the drug companies control the research that is done.

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Here is the preface from my new book: `What doctors won’t tell you about chemotherapy’.

Preface
The media (persuaded by the drug industry and the medical establishment which are, sadly, much the same thing) often seems to believe that chemotherapy is the only way to treat cancer. They may be rich and powerful but they’re wrong. The Guardian newspaper in the UK recently told their readers that “the damage to healthy tissues tends to be temporary” and “side effects usually disappear once the treatment is over.” If The Guardian studies the evidence in this book, they may like to reconsider that advice.

Information is the currency and capital for everything worthwhile we do. But there is more misinformation about cancer than just about anything else. Much of the misinformation is deliberate and corporate and there is more fraud, more confusion and more lying in this area of medicine than almost anywhere else. Charities, which supposedly exist to care for patients, are too often simply part of the cancer industry, beholden to the international pharmaceutical companies which make billions out of selling drugs which do little or no good and which are known to kill people. I don’t know of any cancer charity which doesn’t have links (usually financial) with big drug companies. This is, sadly, by no means unusual. When specific charities and patient associations were first formed, they were usually dedicated to caring and campaigning for patients but, sadly, charities and patient associations in all areas of medicine have been corrupted by the money which big drug companies have available for so-called marketing programmes. In the global cancer industry, the charities largely provide marketing and public relations services while the drug companies control the research that is done. When commercially inconvenient results are produced, they quickly suppress anything which might be financially damaging.

Cancer is not a single disease. It is a word which describes a great many quite different diseases. The one thing these diseases all have in common is that there is an uncontrolled and disorderly growth of abnormal cells. It is quite normal for cells to grow and to reproduce. Every minute, in every human body, an astonishing ten million cells divide. Usually, everything goes well. The cells divide in the right way and at the right time. But when a cell becomes a “cancer cell” it grows and divides at an abnormally rapid rate. These abnormal “cancer cells” destroy or push aside the normal, functioning cells. If the “cancer cells” are not stopped they may spread to other parts of the body and take up residence in other, different organs. “Cancer cells” may be carried around the body through the blood vessels or the lymph channels. When a cancer spreads and appears in another part of the body, the new growths are known as secondaries or metastases. Cancer can also spread by “crab-like” outgrowths (hence the name “cancer”).

Cancer is not the unknown, dark shrouded mystery killer that it is often thought to be. We do not know enough to recommend a lifestyle which will enable all individuals to avoid all cancers. But we know enough to make a difference. If we make the decision to avoid those factors which research has shown can lead to the development of cancer, and to do those things which can strengthen our defences against cancer, then I believe that we can dramatically influence our susceptibility to the disease and we can reduce the chances of a recurrence. We can’t stop it permanently but we can adjust the odds in our favour.

It is now widely accepted that many of the cancers which most commonly occur, develop because outside substances trigger some sort of reaction – and cancer development – in the body. It is no secret that cigarettes, sunshine, asbestos and X-rays can and do cause cancer – more so in susceptible individuals. But it is less widely known that fatty foods and meat cause cancer. And it is less well-known that green vegetables can provide some protection against cancer.

People get cancer through bad luck and inherited susceptibilities. But they also get it through ignorance – ignorance which has been deliberately sustained through commercial greed and political expediency. When businessmen, politicians and doctors know how to prevent 80 per cent of cancers but do nothing, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those cancer deaths are deliberate. Eight out of ten people who die from cancer have effectively been murdered in cold blood. If cancer can be described as a disease of choice, the choice is made for us by those whose sense of responsibility does not match their authority. For too many people the choice is made by politicians, businessmen and doctors who do not understand that with knowledge comes responsibility. (The uncaring nature of politicians, fuelled by ambition mixed with panic and self-preservation, rather than with care for their electorate, was never better illustrated than when British Prime Minister Liz Truss and her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng were reported to have looked at stopping all cancer treatment available through Britain’s National Health Service in order to cut Government expenditure. If that is true, and it seems to be, it is despicable and grotesque; particularly when we remember that both Truss and Kwarteng would know that if they or their loved ones had cancer they would, as leaders of the Government, be entitled to, or able to buy, the best private medical treatment. Mind you, even that was perhaps not the worst I’ve ever heard. Parts of the British Medical Establishment had, prior to that, talked about cutting the amount of time and money spent on diagnosing and treating illness as a nod from the medical profession, theoretically towards helping to deal with global warming, but I believe as a part of reducing health care for Net Zero and the Great Reset.)

In the Proceedings of the Nutrition Society in 1990, Sir Richard Doll said: “There is now uniform agreement among oncologists that the incidence of cancer is determined, in large part, by factors in the environment and aspects of behaviour that are capable of modification or avoidance.”

For decades much of the international “cancer industry” has been devoted to finding magical “cures” for cancer – with little useful effect. And the greatest part of their energy has been expended on developing forms of chemotherapy – with little regard for the fact that the extent of the damage done by chemotherapy can often (indeed, usually) far exceed the value of the treatment. Chemotherapy makes huge amounts of money for the drug industry but as I will show, the evidence demonstrates that as far as many patients are concerned it probably does more harm than good.

Changing habits and customs can take decades and generations. I have absolutely no doubt that in a few decades time eating meat and drinking milk, sunbathing and the consumption of additive-rich foods will, like smoking tobacco, be regarded as bizarre and reckless practices. And routinely recommending toxic chemotherapy for patients diagnosed with cancer will be reckless bordering on criminal behaviour. Our descendants will not understand why we exposed ourselves to such unnecessary risks.

But it will take time for those changes to take place. There are laboratories to dismantle and companies to close down; butchers’ shops to shut and farmers to direct away from animal farming and towards the growing of healthy crops. With so many vested interests to oppose, all this will take a long time.

But you do not have to wait for the authorities to tell you what to eat and what to avoid eating. You do not have to wait for the food companies to start selling foods that will limit your chances of developing cancer. You don’t have to wait for the cancer industry to turn its attention away from using dangerous products or to start telling you how to reduce your cancer risk. You can take action now. This book will tell you how you can help yourself reduce your cancer risk by up to 80 per cent. Since we know what causes around 80 per cent of cancers, it is clear that we also know how to avoid 80 per cent of cancers. I realise that 80% is a long way from 100%, but it’s a lot better than 0%.

I obviously cannot and do not guarantee that you won’t get cancer if you follow the advice in this book. And I have no magic remedies to offer. In many parts of the world, it is rightly considered unprofessional and illegal to offer untested remedies for cancer.

As this book’s title suggests, I have written a long section dealing in detail with the reasons why I believe that chemotherapy is over-sold. The scientific evidence shows that the advantages of chemotherapy are often vastly outweighed by the disadvantages – disadvantages which are ignored (partly through ignorance and partly because of the power exerted by the pharmaceutical industry) by the medical profession and the media.

My own suspicion is that chemotherapy is a sophisticated and profitable fraud with cancer patients as the victims. (I would be happy to debate this statement live on any network television or radio programme but I doubt if any oncologist will dare debate with me. And I doubt if any national television or radio station would dare air the debate. Both oncologists and TV editors will reject the challenge because deep down they will worry that I’m right, and this truth is something they’d prefer to keep under wraps).

Read this book and I firmly believe that your chances of developing cancer will be significantly lower than it will be if you take no action to protect yourself. And I also believe that if you do develop cancer then the advice in this book will improve your chances of fighting your cancer and winning.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/11/19/cancer-chemotherapy-and-lies/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Cancer, Chemotherapy and Establishment Ignorance and Lies appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.