Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years



n 1964 the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking & Health issued its landmark advisory opinion that "...cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action." At that time I was a wet-behind-the-years college freshman. I smoked about two packs a day. I never read the Surgeon General's Report because—in those days, who did? Besides, I wasn't interested in reading the report. It wasn't that I felt there was no truth in the statements advanced by the Surgeon General's Office. Quite to the contrary, I figured they wouldn't have issued the report without some hard, statistical evidence to confirm their allegations. John F. Kennedy thought the same thing because he languished for days before authorizing the release of the report. Two years prior to the release of the health warning, a reporter asked him about the hazards of smoking in a press conference in May, 1962. Kennedy, who feared a Wall Street panic if cigarettes were regulated, told the reporter "...that matter is sensitive enough, and the stock market is in sufficient difficulty without my giving you an answer which is not based on complete information—which I don't have." A few weeks later when the Public Health Service conjectured they did, Kennedy instructed his Surgeon General, Luther L. Terry to appoint an advisory committee to examine the collective "evidence."

The Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking & Health consisted of ten "scientists" which the Surgeon General claimed were completely unbiased and had no preexisting opinion on the dangers of smoking. The "scientists" met at the National Library of Medicine on the campus of the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland nine times from November 1962 to January, 1964. These "unbiased" advocates came from the nation's most prominent anti-smoking health organizations and their think tanks: the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Tuberculosis Association, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Heart Institute. Most of those appointed to the Committee were hardcore anti-smoking crusaders who collectively wrote Kennedy in June, 1961 arguing—without hard medical evidence—that smoking was responsible for a malaise of health ailment that included bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer and coronary heart disease.

The first claims of the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke came from Dr. Paolo Vineis, MD of the Dept. of Cancer Epidemiology of the University of Torino in Italy. Vineis claimed to have identified carcinogens in cigarette smoke condensate that caused tumors in mice. What the report did not say is that the amount of tobacco smoke introduced to create the tumors in mice would have asphyxiated a human. In 1993, using 1950-era "guesstimate" research that, by the repeated citing of those theories as fact, the Environmental Protection Agency declared passive secondhand cigarette smoke (labeled as "environmental tobacco smoke" [ETS]), as a Class A carcinogen. The EPA, in issuing its advisory, said its published views were endorsed by the Surgeon General and pretty much all of the government bureaucracies which did the initial fact-finding studies that led to their conclusion that smoking causes cancer (but, as noted by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America in their 2006 report, none of the "experts" ever published a shred of factual scientific data that proved smoking causes cancer or that trace carcinogenic particles have been found in cigarette smoke.)

On June 12, 1957, then Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney issued a statement, declaring that it was the official position of the US Public Health Service "That the evidence points to a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer." There is, of course, a major difference between "evidence pointing to..." and "evidence proving." Declarations of fact created by peer pressure can't be construed as truth because credentialed officials believe its likely true even if the media chooses to believe it is based on the "peer review opinion." In the 15th century everyone believed the world was flat. Men who disagreed with the "obvious reality that the world was flat" were imprisoned although today we know the world is round.

If enough "experts" rally around fiction, it becomes truth. The best example of accepting fiction as truth today is the "proclaimed fact" that global warming is caused by humankind when, in reality, global warming is a cyclic event caused by solar cycles. As we experience global warming and global cooling, so does Venus and Mars—whose temperatures fluctuations dovetail with those of Earth, have been measured by NASA. The environmentalists who have sold the world a phony bill of goods about global warming are becoming billionaires selling carbon credits—which the taxpayers in the industrial nations are paying for.

On March 7, 1962 the United Kingdom's Royal College of Physicians issued a report which they said, "...clearly indicates cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer." It was this report which the anti-smoking agencies in the United States used to pressure President John F. Kennedy to declare that smoking was the cause of lung cancer. The problem is, there is not, nor ever has been, any hard evidence that links smoking to lung cancer. None. In fact, statements by anti-smoking advocates that secondhand smoke also causes lung cancer is false as well. If it's not true, why would men of science say it? Because those men of science needed a logical explanation that, if smoking is the cause of lung cancer, how do people who have never smoked get lung cancer? How else? By breathing in secondhand cigarette, cigar and pipe smoke from an offending smoker.

When you examine the claims of anti-smoking advocates who insist that direct or indirect inhalation of tobacco, nicotine and/or tar causes lung cancer in 85% to 90% of all reported cases, their argument is contradicted by the fact that 25% to 30% of all cases of bronchioalveolar carcinoma, a form of cancer completely unrelated to tobacco, is the cause of many of the reported cases of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Some people just get cancer. And, the majority of those who smoke and get cancer did not get cancer because they smoked. They got cancer because, genetically, they are predisposed to getting cancer.

If smoking was the primary catalyst of cancer, then the only cancer nonsmokers should ever get would be lung cancer, cancer of the esophagus or larynx, the nasal passages or those organ involved with the inhalation and exhalation of smoke. Using that logic, nonsmokers should never get cervical or ovarian cancer, or male or female breast cancer, or cancer of the prostate. Smoking foes, of course, will rightfully argue that once cancer cells break off from a primary cancer, they travel through the bloodstream or lymphatic system to secondary locations, which means the secondary cancer can end up anywhere in the body from the little toe to your brain. That's how cancer metastasizes. However, the fact remains, to believe smoking is the primary cause of cancer, then oncologists with smoking patients that have breast cancer or ovarian cancer, should assume those cancers are secondary, and that the primary cancer will be in the lungs, esophagus or larynx.

However, blowing away the argument that smoking causes lung cancer, on June 8, 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization issued a joint statement in which they said that smoking does not cause lung cancer. In an opening statement on an article in the Journal of Theoretics dealing with the CDC/WHO findings, Dr. James P. Siepmann, MD began by saying: "Yes, it's true. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. Initially, I was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying 'smoking causes lung cancer,' but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything like that)....The data used [by the advocates against smoking] is biased in the way they are collected."

Yet, ignoring the facts that the "pieces of evidence" the anti-smoking crowd uses to prove their case that smoking causes lung cancer and breathing second hand cigarette smoke will cause lung cancer don't fit together any better than random pieces of several different jigsaw puzzles. Smoking will kill you. Now that everything is as clear as mud, sit back, light up, and continue reading.

Several years after the Jan. 11, 1964 Surgeon General's report was issued, I read the book, "For Your Own Good," by Jacob Sullum that pretty much confirms the anti-smoking agenda of the US government is not, nor ever was, based on established medical evidence or scientific fact, but on the neurotic agenda of the left to save us from ourselves from bad habits that are usually more repugnant than lethal. That is, in some cases. In some cases they are lethal for a different reason.

That's the problem with the "medical views" of the anti-tobacco crowd. Some of what they say is dead-on scientifically accurate. Some sounds accurate but there is no factual scientific or medical evidence to prove the theories are anything more than theories. And some of it is just pure made-up medical mythology used to scare smokers into quitting, or to convince them it is their fault when they get cancer. What we have to understand is that doctors lie and, because they do, smokers die.

Sadly, if the medical scientific community told the whole truth about smoking without trying to scare us where there is no scientifically proven physical evidence to confirm their rhetoric—a lot less people would smoke. And a lot less people would die from the real deadly results of smoking. If the medical community stopped lying about cancer and told people that while there may be causal links between smoking and cancer, the link between smoking and heart and pulmonary disease are proven facts. If you smoke you will get one, two, three or more of those nasty, deadly diseases. Usually before the victims of the three most preventable smoking-related health tragedies that end human life learn about them from their physician, they're already experiencing the symptoms just before they are diagnosed with COPD, arteriosclerosis, congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease or peripheral artery disease. Sadly, once they are diagnosed with any of these smoking-related diseases, they are usually well along the road to the frightening death that awaits them. When you quit smoking for a couple of years or so, your lungs will slowly regain a healthy rosy hue. But your capillaries, veins and arteries have no self-cleansing mechanism. When blood no longer flows through the veins and arteries back to the heart, you're going to have a heart attack—and, you're going to die.

Depending on the severity of the blockages your bad habits have created, your family may be shopping for your final resting place after what might well have been your first and fatal heart attack. If you've had at least one heart attack and still smoke, you are a ticking time bomb waiting for the fatal heart attack that is just around the corner. Put out that cigarette, and throw the partially-full page in the trash. No promise that you're going to quit as soon as what you have left is gone. After all, cigarettes are really expensive now and you can't afford to waste money. With that logic, your life you can waste, but pocket change is irreplaceable.

When I was a smoker (prior to a serious heart attack and a triple bypass), smoking was something I admit, I really enjoyed. Like everyone who has ever read or heard all the surgeon general warnings (and saw the anti-smoking ads—particularly the one I still vividly recall in which there was a silhouette of the Marlboro man astride a horse in a cemetery)—I knew that even though smoking might ultimately be bad for me, there were immediate "benefits" that all smokers enjoy enough to ignore the reality of what ultimately happens to all smokers. That's why smokers smoke. The simple after dinner pleasure of lighting up. The stress relaxer at work. Or, as a much-enjoyed accompaniment to a cup of coffee or over drinks with friends.

The History of the Devil's Weed
Tobacco, the devil's weed, was "discovered" in the Caribbean Islands by Ropdrigo de Jerez, who accompanied Christopher Columbus on his first voyage to the New World. Native Arawak Indians in the Antilles rolled dried leaves and lit them, inhaling and then exhaling the smoke. Jerez discovered the plant was smoked, chewed, or ground up as a powder and snorted by the Indians. The majority rolled the leaves into what were primitive cigars or crushed the dried leaves and smoked them in a "Y-shaped" pipe. The natives called the leaves "tobacco."

Jerez experimented with smoking and took scores of dried tobacco leaves—and tobacco seeds back to Aymonte, Spain. But, 15th and early 16th century Spaniards were not ready to see smoke billowing from a man's nose and mouth as if his innards were on fire. Ropdrigo de Jerez became the first person ever incarcerated for smoking a "regular" cigar—and, as a result of his smoking, served more time than most people do today for selling or smoking marijuana. Many of those who witnessed Jerez smoking were convinced the Devil had taken possession of their friend in the strange new world he had visited. Their fears were reported to the Catholic Church who reported the incident to the Church's Inquisitor. Jerez was taken into custody and spent several years in an Inquisition prison because the Church thought he was possessed by the devil..

Jean Nicot, the French ambassador to Lisbon promoted tobacco as a topical ointment to cure lesions, tumors, headaches—and, believe it or not, respiratory problems. A book on Nicotiiana, named after the plant's genus, written by a renown University of Seville physician, Dr. Nicolo Monardes, recommended tobacco as a cure for over 20 ailments and diseases—including cancer. Among the ailments was asthma which, we know today, is aggravated by tobacco smoke. Dr. Monardes "research" suggested tobacco would cure headaches, stomach cramps, menstrual cramps, gout, and intestinal worms. The book was translated into seven languages and tobacco was on its way around the world. Monardes even experimented with the psychoactive ingredient of nicotine on stress-stress related conditions.

James VI of Scotland was not impressed by Monadares' work, and the affect his "sanction" was having on this disgusting habit in England. Smoking was sanctioned by Queen Elizabeth I who, it was reported, was a smoker herself. She even let Sir Walter Raleigh smoke in the palace. When James VI succeeded Elizabeth I as James I of England, he published the first polemic against smoking. James I denounced tobacco as a "medicine," pointing out the weeds "uncivilized origin." When James I couldn't stop physicians from prescribing tobacco (because Parliament would not outlaw it), he enacted a nonbinding edict insisting that "healthy men should not use it."

James I argued to his advisers that a dependence on tobacco would make his soldiers unsuited for war. Englishmen loved tobacco, which sold for its weight in silver. James I was the first to speak of the dangers of "secondhand smoke," arguing that the appalling habit of "lighting pipes" at the dinner table after the evening meal would also make addicts out of the women around the table who, by custom, were not allowed to partake in post-meal pastime of smoking.

James I was so virulently opposed to tobacco that he published a pamphlet in which he said that the wife of a smoker can "...either take up the pipe herself and corrupt her sweete breath therewith, or else resolve to live in perpetual stinking torment." He concluded that "...smoking is a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the nose, harmfull to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoker of the pit that is bottomless."

Once the official view of the King of England was published, scores of books agreeing with his position were published. Yet, despite the royal opposition to smoking, tobacco consumption skyrocketed partially because of rumors that smoking helped ward off the plague. To discourage smoking, James I increased the duty on the importing of tobacco, followed by taxes on tobacco. But, because of opposition from Parliament (smoking was now considered a wealthy man's pleasure), none of James' edicts were enforced. One man's love affair with tobacco is another man's disdain.

Medical Myths and Realities
Yet, although the World Health Report of 1999, chapter 5 and Statistical Annex (http://www.who.whr/1999/en/report.htm) claims that 90% of all lung cancer and 15% to 20% of all other cancers are attributable to smoking, WHO and the CDC revised their positions two years later, stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Nor has it deterred the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] from consistently blaming lung cancer on smoking.

In 1996, JAMA's website reported that cancer "...is the most preventable cause of death in our society." In 1998 they cited an LA Trends article on smoking habits in Sweden, claiming, once again that smoking is responsible for 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men, and about 50-80% in women.

But we know today from a WHO/CDC June, 2001 report that 25% to 30% of all cases of lung cancer result from bronchioalveolar carcinoma, a form of cancer completely unrelated to tobacco. In a 1996 JAMA article, its AMA doctor-author simply accepts as fact the assertions of the article's author, without evidence, that "...tobacco use has been cited as the chief avoidable preventable cause of death in the US, responsible for more than 420,000 deaths annually."

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America did an epidemiological study in 2006, aimed at investigating the causal inferences between smoking and cancer and, once and for all, confirming that cigarette smoking causes cancer. They began by reviewing two Surgeon General report whose premises and conclusions were identical. But the anti-smoking bias prevalent in all AMA studies was missing. The study noted that the two Surgeon General reports, "...evaluate[d] and contrast[ed] how the committees applied causal criteria to the available evidence..." (more appropriately called opinions since there was not even enough factual evidence to call them theories). "We focus on the evidence for four cancer sites in particular that received detailed reviews in the reports: lung, larynx, esophagus and bladder..." And, then the coup de grâce—"While the authors of these reports may have considered evidential factors they did not explicitly cite, such lack of transparency...undermines the purpose of the causal criteria to promote objective, evidence based decision-making."

Essentially, the 2006 study relied on the same type of science that was used by the anti-smoking advocates in 1964 and 1984. They were prepared to blame anything on tobacco in order to end its use. That type of epidemiology is what we need to call "political science" because it simply isn't real science. And, sadly, its no better, nor more honest, forty years later.

The anti-smoking advocates use the same evidentiary argument that Al Gore used to silence the debate on global warning: "If you looked at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over." What Gore meant is that when the government controls the "peer review," their opinion is the only opinion that counts. Initially, they frame the debate, and they write the laws that will regulate the topic under debate. Gore used wholly fabricated computer models to support his claim that the "climate crisis" was caused by carbon dioxide emissions although NASA and about 85% of the world's climate scientists offered factual proof that climate change, both warming and cooling, is caused by solar cycles.

The 1964 Surgeon General's study found what it claimed was a causal link between both lung and laryngeal cancer, but not esophageal or bladder cancer. The 1982 report concluded there was a causal link between esophageal cancer but there was no evidence that could link smoking to bladder cancer. The committees found links between smoking and numerous diseases, most commonly, heart and pulmonary disease. But, they determined that lung cancer was most likely caused by smoking based entirely on the magnitude of the relative risk and not based on any evidence that smoking creates or inflames cancer cells.

The reality is, smoking causes cancer only by a preponderance of the views of those in the medical and scientific community who say it does. Likewise, people cause global warming by a preponderance of the environmentalist lobbies, social progressive ecoalarmists and global profiteers like Al Gore, Jr. who are getting very, very rich selling carbon credits, who have out-shouted the voice of reason which understands that the warming and cooling phases of Planet Earth are caused 99.985% of the time by the solar cycles of the sun. The remaining one and a half of one percent is determined by man. The cost to alter that 1.5% is virtually incalculable and very likely would cost several trillions of dollars per year with absolutely no impact on global temperature. Do the environmentalists know this? With a certainty. Why don't they say something? Because, contrary to the rhetoric, they are not in this to save the planet. They are in this to enrich themselves at your expense.

And, in the case of cancer research and cancer treatment, it's important to understand this simple reality. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Oncology have charted the average lifespan of men and women, by race, once they have contracted various forms of cancer. Lets look at life expectancy of white males once they are diagnosed with three of the most common cancers:

Prostate Cancer—White Male
8.0 to 12.1 years
Lung or bronchial Cancer—White Male
10.9 to 14.6 years
Colorectal Cancer—White Male
5.8 to 7.1 years

A successful cancer treatment to the medical community is one in which the patient survives 5 years after surgery and/or chemotherapy. Yet, the American Medical Association knows that if victims with cancers less aggressive than pancreatic, ovarian, cervical, colon or bladder do nothing, the odds are good that he or she will survive 7 to 10 years without any medications or or medical treatments. Many times those taking chemotherapy or radiation treatment to prolong their lives actually die much faster. Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth of abnormal genetically-altered cells which then begin to feed on healthy cells, forming tumors and metastasizing in the absence of inhibitory instructions from the body. The physical properties of the infected cells change and they secrete enzymes that allow them to digest neighboring tissue. Believe me, this process has nothing to do with tobacco, nicotine, tars or the other chemicals used in the processing of cigarettes.

The Century Old Cancer Cure
The traditional medical community uses a 16th century approach to treating cancer. They destroy the infected area. When the carcinoma attacks an organ you cannot survive without, or the chemo or radiation therapy affects those organs, the patient dies.

Sadly, this is the medical procedures the AMA sells as the traditional treatment for cancer. It doesn't work, but its profitable for the oncologist. As crass as it may be to believe, treating cancer is not about curing the patient, who is thought to be incurable, its about making money. Cancer is a $600 billion per year global industry. That's why the "C" word is so frightening to those who get cancer. It means you are going to die—usually sooner rather than later.

During the last decade of the 19th century an Illinois horse breeder named John Hoxsey watched a cancerous lesion on the foreleg of one of his favorite stallions necrotize after the horse fed for a few weeks on a particular clump of shrubs and flowering plants in a meadow Hoxsey put him to pasture until he had to put him down. Hoxsey's farm was located between Carlinville and Edwardsville, Illinois.

The lesion disappeared and the horse regained his strength. Convinced the weeds had cured the cancer, Hoxsey searched the pasture where the stallion ate to determine precisely which shrubs the horse had eaten. He was convinced the wild plants were responsible for the stallion's recovery. What the horse had eaten was red clover, alfalfa, buckthorn bark, sanguinarine bloodroot, cascara, poke root, burdock root, barberry root, stillingia root, prickly ash and several other plants which Hoxsey either could not identify by name, or chose not to divulge. He gathered the plants from where the stallion fed, together with the root stems of some plants he could not identify, and carried them back to his house where he cultivated them.

According to Harry Hoxsey, John's great-grandson (a former coal miner and oilman turned herbalist), his father—John Hoxsey III., a veterinary surgeon (licensed under a grandfather clause in the Illinois Medical Practice Act of 1877—inherited his father's puzzle. He kept copious notes on the compounds he and his father tried. Dr. Hoxsey, DVM devoured every new issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association looking for the latest breakthrough in cancer research. He continued modifying his mixtures until he stumbled on to the correct formula that seemed to similarly help afflicted horses with cancerous lesions.

In addition to the wild plants in his father's pasture, Dr. John Hoxsey included ingredients from old home cancer remedies such as antimony sulfide (which contains a small amount or arsenic) and zinc chloride. The process was tedious, and he suffered one failure after another. Finally, he duplicated the cure of the stallion in his great-grandfather's pasture. Hoxsey created an herbal red salve for external tumors and a brown liquid which he used to treat internal carcinomas. Hoxsey, who was now treating horses from as far away as Kentucky, began to wonder if his cancer remedy that healed horses might have the same affect on people. Hoxsey, who bought a livery stable in Girard, Illinois in 1901 when he son Harry was born, quietly began treating human cancer patients under the supervision of two medical doctors who were more interested in curing cancer and saving lives than they were AMA protocol.

Harry Hoxsey became his father's medical assistant, again, under the tutorship of the two physicians who monitored the recovery of their patients in Dr. John Hoxsey's "clinic." Human patients gradually crowded the horses out of the livery stable as word of cancer cures in Girard, Illinois spread. Securing a promise from his son that he would become a physician, John Hoxsey gave his diaries and the Hoxsey cancer formulas to his son on his deathbed in 1919, making his son promise that he would continue healing people of cancer—even, if need be, in defiance to the AMA, and even if the cancer victims could not pay for the tonic or balm he used.

Harry Hoxsey immediately took his father's 'show" on the road, staying briefly in Taylorville, Illinois; Chicago; Clinton, Iowa; Philadelphia, Detroit; Wheeling, West Virginia; and Atlantic City, New Jersey before ending up in Dallas, Texas in 1924. Harry's short stints were due to his ongoing battle with the medical community who did not like Hoxsey's unorthodox method of treating cancer—he cured it. Inexpensively. Hoxsey was arrested more times than any other medical "quack" in the history of the United States for practicing medicine without a license. None of the charges ever stuck because not one Hoxsey patient ever testified against his healer. But the AMA licensed healers always managed to run him out of town. Hoxsey was a quack.

In 1954, in the height of the war between the FDA and Hoxsey, a group of ten medical doctors decided to check out the "quack," and asked Hoxsey if they could visit his clinic for a couple of days. Hoxsey went them "one better." He not only gave the MDs access to the patients but also complete access to their medical records. At the end of their visit, the medicos issued a report to the AMA in which they said the clinic "...is successfully treating pathologically-proven cases of cancer, both internal and external, without the use of surgery, radium or X-ray...Some of those presented before us have been free of symptoms as long as 24-years, and the physical evidence indicates that they are all enjoying exceptional health at this time. We, as a committee, feel that the Hoxsey Treatment is superior to such conventional methods of treatment such as X-ray, radium or surgery. We are willing to assist the Clinic in any way possible to bring this treatment to the American public."

Hoxsey convinced all ten he had, indeed, found the cure for cancer. In the end the medical orthodoxy, which tried multiple times to convict Hoxsey of medical malpractice and/or practicing medicine without a license, branded him a medical quack, and his cancer cure as "useless backyard weeds." The American Cancer Society blacklisted Hoxsey's cancer cure in 1968—eight years after the FDA raided Hoxsey's clinic and carried all of his files, records and formulas out the back door of his facility and torched them. FDA investigators even went to the homes of every Hoxsey patient they could find and seized whatever medications they could find, telling them the elixir and the red balm was worse than the cancer, and that the cure would kill them quicker than the cancer it was supposed to cure.

The AMA buried the 1954 medical report that would have saved the lives of millions of cancer victims over the years. Hoxsey remained branded as a quack, and the FDA—pushed by the AMA—built its case against Hoxsey and, 6 years later on Sept. 12, 1960, after one more failed attempt to convict him in a court of law, simply took the law in their own hands. The FDA raided his clinic, destroying over 70 years of cancer research—and every file they could get their hands on. The FDA banned the marketing, sale or use of the Hoxsey Cancer Treatment in the United States. From 1954 to 1959, FDA lawsuits caused Hoxsey to shut down 14 clinics in as many States. When the Dallas Clinic shut down in 1960, the FDA won. It succeeded in driving the Hoxsey Clinic out of the United States. Hoxsey's controversial treatment is now administered exclusively by the Bio-Medical Center in Tijuna, Mexico. The clinic was started in 1963 by Hoxsey's nurse, Mildred Nelson. When Nelson died in 1999, the Bio-Medical Center was taken over and by Nelson's sister, Elizabeth Jones. Hoxsey, suffering from serious heart problems (no doubt aggravated by his 30 year battle with the AMA and FDA), could not go on. He encouraged Nelson to go to Tijuna and continue his work.

Hoxsey, sick and yet deeply invested in Texas oil, stayed in Dallas to manage his oil investments. Also, I suspect, because he no longer had the will or the desire to continue his fight with the FDA. In 1967 he developed prostate cancer. Because it was against the law for Bio-Medical to distribute Hoxsey products in the United States, Hoxsey refused to put Nelson at risk by letting her ship the brown tonic to him. He reformulated it at home from memory. The tonic did not work. While Hoxsey detractors insisted that Hoxsey went to an oncologist and had prostate surgery, he did not. He was afraid to. Hoxsey was convinced the AMA would extract their revenge on him, and he would not survive the operation. His heart failing, Hoxsey retreated into almost hermit isolation. He became the invisible man, and died just as invisibly before Christmas in 1974. The Dallas newspapers did not print his obituary. There were no tributes, nor even a mention that the "quack" was dead—a victim of the cancer he claimed to cure. For all practical purposes, Hoxsey died when the FDA closed the doors of his clinic in 1960. His heart simply continued beating—but he was a dead man walking for all of those 14 years.

On Feb. 15, 2009 Johns Hopkins issued a report on how cancer cells multiply and survive in the human body. Cancer cells need blood sugar to grow and split—through c-Myc cancer promoting genes (a regular gene located in chromosome 8) that use microRNAs to control the use of glutamine, a major energy source. The results of the Johns Hopkins study, which shed a new light on cancer formation appeared in the Feb. 15, 2009 online issue of Nature Magazine.

In their search to learn how c-Myc promotes cancer, Johns Hopkins researchers teamed up with protein experts, and, using human cancer cells with cMyc turned off, they looked for proteins in the cell's mitochondria (the powerhouse) that responds to c-Myc. They found eight proteins which feed the chemical reactions that create cell energy. The Johns Hopkins team believes if they can turn off the cancer cell's ability to divide and reproduce, they will eitther outrightly kill, or at least dramatically slow the growth rate of cancer. But that remains an unanswered question which not even the Johns Hopkins scientists will speculate on. They know that cancer cells lacking glutamine grow much slower than those with the protein. But with that one answer is a million questions.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health. It has occurred to me that the money expended by the National institute of Health and the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins to find a cancer cure is probably more money than was spent in three lifetimes of Hoxseys to develop what was an effective cure for cancer that was accidentally discovered by a horse a hundred years ago.

But, because the cure was herbal, and the AMA with the help of the FDA could not profit from it, they destroyed it. It's a shame that science and ingenuity cannot learn to work together.

 

 

 

 

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2011 •Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.