natural treatment for the skin disease broke broken leg

ty: welcome to the truth about cancer: a globalquest. i'm your host, ty bollinger. many of you may have seen the quest for the cures last year. we were able to travel across the united states interviewing doctors, scientists, researchers, and cancerpatients to learn what they were doing to treat cancer. it is only because of your support that wehave been able this year to travel across theglobe and to do over 100 new interviews with top scientists, researchers, doctors andcancer patients that are preventing, treating, and beating cancer.

what you just saw represents less than halfof the total interviews that you will see overthe next nine days. well i set out on a quest across the globein search of the true cures to cancer. you may ask why would i be so set on findingcancer's true preventions and treatments? did you know that almost 50 percent of thepeople alive today will face cancer? did you know that one in four males alivetoday will die from cancer? and one in five females will die from cancer? while these statistics give enough reasonfor many good people to search out the answers. they are not the central reason that triggeredmy journey across the globe in search for

the true answers for cancer. let me tell you why i had to embark on thisjourney. for me everything began with an irreplaceableloss. it's an old wound beginning 20 years ago. but sometimes it still feels like it happenedyesterday. i lost both my mother and father to cancer. well, in all actuality, it was actually tocancer's false treatments. i also lost five other close family membersto cancer and it's so called treatments. after my folks died, i was angry and paralyzedby grief. i couldn't see any good coming out of whathappened to them and i felt like their lives

were wasted. and charlene, my wife, and our children wererobbed of precious future memories. but it was in the moment that the first booki wrote about cancer’s treatments got into the hands of someone seeking the lifesavinginformation on cancer that everything changed. i then realized for the first time that myparent’s life and deaths actually mattered. just last year everything that we learnedculminated in the quest for the cures. fast forward to the truth about cancer: aglobal quest. i knew that this endeavor would take moreenergy, research, time and more tears than anything charlene and i had ever done before. again it

was difficult to leave my preciouswife and children. and at times i questioned whether it was worth this sacrifice to take this quest around the globe, but charlene was the first one to tellme that i had to go. i truly owe this entire mission to my preciouswife. she was my hope when i had given up. she was my faith when i was barely holdingon. she was a gift from heaven and she still is. oh and a word about my children. a rule that i learned as a father, never leaveyour kids out.

our eldest briana, is a diligent worker andadventurous. she loves her animals, the outdoors and ravishingher pocket knife skills. bryce has this hysterical sense of humor,a high set of values, respects his elders and he loves sports like basketball. then there’s tabitha with her comical laughter,her gentle care for her little sister and her love for animals and dressing up likea princess. and finally our youngest, charity, who lovesnothing more than clinging to mommy and daddy and playing with her big sissy, tabitha. having these precious children and a wonderfulwife has taught me that life is worth fighting

for. so it was time for me to embark on this journey. venturing into the areas of the world withmore equipment than we could handle, with a chance of getting stopped by authorities,which actually happened more than once, having equipment failure or challenges to healthor safety for the team and myself. but the bigger personal challenge for me wasknowing that each day i would be revisiting the loss of my mother and father. and the things that i could’ve done if ihad known about them earlier that would have saved their lives.

and yet, it is this pain that pushes me further. dad’s my hero. he would be proud of what we are doing. of that i’m sure. you are about to learn the best treatmentsand preventions to cancer, protocols that won’t harm your body from the world leadingdoctors across the globe. you’ll see and experience things that youwouldn’t have even believed if you had not watched each of these nine episodes and seenthe science and documented evidence to support the countless people that are living witnessesthat there are true answers to the dreaded

disease of cancer. get ready for one of the most transformationalexperiences of your life as we journey into a nine day quest to find the true answersfor cancer. this is the truth about cancer: a global quest. we traveled the entire globe to gather thislifesaving information so that we can empower you with knowledge. please, tell your friends and family to tunein for the next nine days. this information is ofvital importance. dr. ivars kalvins, one of the 2015 finalistsfor the european medicine

award, explains why. dr. ivars kalvins: it is calculated that thenew generation, the generation of today... from thisgeneration… each second man and each third woman will have this illness… cancer. ty: one in two men and one in three womenthat are alive today are gonna face cancer. that's why we, at the truth about cancer,are so passionate about our mission to educate, expose, and eradicate cancer onceand for all. in order for us to educate, we felt that itwas vitally important that we obtain the most cutting edge information about cancer preventionsand treatments and that's why we

traveled across the globe. we obtained interviews with over 100 new expertsrepresenting over 20 different countries. a big portion of educating people about thetruth is exposing the lies. and that's why,specifically in this episode one, we're going to be exposing the lies about the historyof modern medicine and the history of cancertreatments. so after the next nine days ofeducating you about the truth and exposing the lies, together we will be one step closerto eradicating cancer once and for all. but let me ask you a question.

can someone educate someone else about somethingthat they know nothing about? dr. jonathan wright: they gave us a wholehour on our nutritionals. a whole hour. ty: a whole hour. dr. jonathan wright: in four years of medicalschool. ty: wow. dr. jonathan wright: and they told us, “thereis vitamin a, and b1, and b2, and c, and d, andthey are in alphabetical order and you can look them up.”

and then they told us somereally basic facts. we got a whole hour. ty: so how much training did you receive onnutrition when you were in medical school? because i know here in the states, it's almostnone. dr. gaston cornu-labat: yes, not much. ty: not much? even in argentina? dr. gaston cornu-labat: it was close to—very little. ty: close to none? dr. gaston cornu-labat: very little.

dr. suzanne kim: even in medical school they don't teach you—they don't teach you anything about nutrition. ty: it's so vitally important for us to understand this history if we were going to answer that question. why is modern medicine so drug intensive? it's not because patent petrochemical medicine is superior. it's because the monopoly medicine which was created over a hundred years ago. the word doctor actually means teacher, sodoctors should be educating their patients and teaching their patients. but unfortunately, the only thing that doctorsare taught while they're in medical school is how to prescribedrugs.

dr. jonathan wright: we got hours and hoursand hours on how to use basically patent medicines which, as you know, are what usuallygoes on the prescription pad. it’s amolecule that can be patented, which means it's not found in nature, because you can'tpatent it if it's found in nature and that's what we get educated in. dr. irvin sahni: because they don't get paidto educate people. they get paid to writeprescriptions. and you know, you can imagine the drug lobbymade sure that's the case. dr. garry gordon: a doctor is brainwashedwhen he gets out of medical school because

themedical school has too much subsidization of the professors who are being paid by thedrug company. so the professor never teaches any studentin medical school, “why don't you try vitamin c?” they're going to tell them the latest drug. dr. joseph mercola: that’s by design, specifically. over acentury ago, there were foundations, the carnegie and the rockefeller foundations, whosort of engineered the curriculum through their grants and donations.

ty: are you wondering what dr. joseph mercolameant when he mentioned that the carnegie and the rockefeller foundations engineeredmedical school curriculum over a century ago? he was referring to the flexner report of1910, which we covered in our last documentary. just in case you missed that important pieceof this foundation that we’re laying today, here's a brief recap. you see, if we're going to change where we'regoing, we need to know where we've been. and that is why history is so important.

because as the old saying goes, “thosewho don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” g. edward griffin: so i don't need to go anyfurther. you can understand when the money iscoming from a source, which has a vested interest in the outcome, now what's going tohappen is the outcome is going to be what the donor wants it to be, generally. so this is the problem. and that goes back even further in time tothe turn of the last century when the rockefeller group and thecarnegie group actually came together and

they decided that they would “reform”medical education in america. dr. robert scott bell: at the time of thelate 1800s, early 1900s, 20th century, medical schoolstaught a lot of different things. there were homeopathic medical schools. there werenaturopathic schools, there were eclectic herbal-type medicine schools. and so it was allthere. there was not one way. what happened was that the rockefeller andcarnegie

foundations were interested in establishingthe one way. how would they do that? well, they would get ahold of the educationsystem and create a medical monopoly by basically eliminating all competitionto patent petrochemical medical education. that's the flexner report of 1910, as it becameknown. abraham and simonflexner were hired to do this. it was a preordained commissioned report. dr. darrell wolfe: not surprisingly the basisof the report was that it was far too easy

to start amedical school and that most schools were not teaching sound medicine. let metranslate this for you. these natural health colleges were not pushingenough chemical drugs manufactured by who? carnegie and rockefeller. the ama, who were evaluating the various medicalcolleges, made it their job to target and shut down the larger respected homeopathiccolleges. carnegie and rockefellerbegan to immediately shower hundreds of millions

of dollars on these medical schoolsthat were teaching drug-intensive medicine. g. edward griffin: by the way, when they donatedthe money, the donors would say, “now we've given you a lot of money, and we know you'regoing to do the right thing with it. butwould you object if we had someone from our staff appointed to your board of directors. just to make sure—just to see how our moneyis being spent?” well, that was really a condition of gettingthe money. so you know the university said,“that would be fine. anybody that you would suggest would be, i'msure, more than

adequate.” so they began to load up the boards of directorsof these teaching centers with people who literally were on the payroll of the donors. once that was in place, the curriculum ofthe universities, the teaching centers, swung completely in the direction ofpharmaceutical drugs and it has remained that way ever since. dr. darrell wolfe: predictably those schoolsthat had the financing, churned out the better doctors. oh, wait a minute. or should i say, the more recognized doctors? in return

for thefinancing, the schools were required to continue teaching course material that wasexclusively drug-oriented with no emphasis on natural medicine. by 1925, over 10,000 herbalists were out ofbusiness. by 1940, over 1,500 chiropractorswould be prosecuted for practicing quackery. the 22 homeopathic medical schools thatflourished in the 1900s dwindled down to just two by 1923. by 1950 all the schoolsteaching homeopathy were closed. in the end, if a physician did not graduatefrom a flexner-approved medical school and

receive an md degree, then he or she couldnot find a job anywhere. this is why todaymds are so heavily biased towards synthetic drug therapy and know little about nutrition,if anything. g. edward griffin: now this whole medicalfield has been skewed in the direction of pharmaceutical drugs, which can be patentedand produce great profits for the producers. then the next step is that means that anythingcoming from nature is excluded, and that's where we think, someof us think, that most of the promise lies. inthese very complex substances found in herbs

and plants and trees and things like that,seeds. some of us feel that it was probably meantto be that way. you come out of all of this analysis and allof this history with the realization that themedical profession is really like a lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry and most ofthe doctors have no idea that that's the case. they don't understand this history. ty: it's so vitally important for us to understandthis history if we're going to answer that question, “why is modern medicine so drugintensive?”

it's not because patentpetrochemical medicine is superior. it is because of a monopoly medicine, whichwas created over 100 years ago. dr. aleksandra niedzwiecki: and the otheraspect is also a monopoly on treatment. onlypharmaceutical, conventional medicine is the medicine that is officially approved andacclaimed. and people who try to find other solutionshave difficulties when it comes to insurance coverage and other problems. so maintaining a monopoly on treatment isalso

one of the ways to protect and grow this business. dr. jonathan wright: and have you noticedthat when a new drug comes out and they call it, “ablockbuster drug,” they're not talking about, “it cures cancer.” they're not talking about,“it's blockbuster for health.” they're talking about how many bucks you canmake and that's what it always is. itseems that the number one goal of a lot of health care is to make money. and if wehappen to do some good with it, that's fine,

but our number one goal is to make money. dr. matthias rath: very few know that thebirth hour of the pharmaceutical industry is actually adeliberate decision by a handful of people on this side and on the other side of theatlantic ocean to define disease as a marketplace and build what has now become thelargest investment industry upon that simple thought. so cancer is just one element of this unspeakablebusiness of defining diseases as a marketplace. everything else that you see today aroundthe pharmaceutical industry—

the tremendous profits, the inability to eliminatediseases, the propaganda war from that side that they are actually making progressin any disease—all of that comes from the fact that it's a business model, an investmentindustry, that thrives on the continuation ofexisting diseases and the launching of new diseases. ty: yes, modern medicine is a business. and just like any business, the goal is togrow this business and also to eliminate competitionand to maintain the monopoly. even in 1913,the american medical association developed an internal department that they called thepropaganda department and its main goal was

to eliminate quacks. but what exactly isquackery? in the united states, our first president,george washington, died as a result of bloodletting and that was an approved treatment of theday. ignaz semmelweis was called aquack because he suggested that doctors actually wash their hands before surgery. andphysicians today that do not use chemotherapy, they're considered to be quacks. but very few people know the real historyof chemotherapy and its origins.

dr. sunil pai: how we first discovered chemotherapy,the first chemotherapy agents in the early 1940s, was because in italy, when theydropped nitrogen mustard gas on one of these missions and they were doing the postmortem autopsy of the bodies, the lymphocytes of these patients dropped down. and then some of these doctors got an idea. “well guys, if someone has leukemia orlymphoma where these lymphocytes are producing too much, it was suppressed in thesepeople that were dropped with mustard gas.” so the chemotherapy agent comes fromthe history of actually making— ty: mustard gas.

dr. sunil pai: you said it. ty: as shocking as this may be, the firstchemotherapy agents, and even some of the agents that are still used today, are derived from the mustard gases that were used to killsoldiers in the world wars. this explains why many people, including myself,would never touch chemotherapy. it's just too darn toxic. but it's not just me. as you're about tolearn, and we learned from previous interview,

90 percent of oncologists won't do chemoeither. dr. sunil pai: and there's a study came out that about 90 percent of physicians, particularly in oncology, would not prescribe the drugthat they give to their patients to their wife ortheir child. right? so what does that tell us? dr. steven klayman: he's probably not goingto do his treatment, why would you? ty: in 1971 us president nixon declared awar on cancer, but are we really winning this war in light of the fact that 90 percent ofoncologists won't even take their own treatment?

is the cancer industry any closer today thanthey were then in finding a cure? why does thisperpetual war on cancer continue? dr. aleksandra niedzwiecki: one of the reasonswhy this war continues is the money that are being made in this war. this refers to the treatments, so called treatmentsthat are being used in cancer, namely chemotherapy and radiation. chemotherapy uses the most powerful toxinsknown to humans and these toxins of course are being sold to us as substancesthat can kill cancer cells. but thesesubstances also kill, annihilate, healthy

cells in the body and damage its organs, whichmakes the recovery from cancer almost a miracle, impossible. and also the very substances that are beingused to fight cancer are cancer causing chemicals. so instead of eliminating cancer or curbingcancer, we are inducing, generating new cancers. ty: that's pretty interesting, isn't it? maybe one of the reasons that 90 plus percentof oncologists won't do conventional treatmentslike chemotherapy is that they actually cause cancer.

let's listen to dr. veronique desaulniers,who actually cured her own mother and herself of breast cancer, talkabout tamoxifen, which is the most popular drug prescribed to treat breast cancer. dr. veronique desaulniers: tamoxifen is adrug that most women are put on when they havebreast cancer, but they don't tell them that it is classified as a carcinogen by theamerican cancer society and the world health organization. does it make sense to givewomen a carcinogenic drug that will cause cancers in other parts of her body to “prevent”cancer?

ty: that's really shocking, isn't it? tamoxifen, the number one drug prescribedto treat breast cancer, it actually causes cancer. what about other chemotherapy drugs? is tamoxifenalone? dr. ben johnson: it's estimated that by 2020more than half of all cancer in america will bemedically-induced from drugs or radiation. so our medical establishment itself will soonbecome the leading cause of cancer in america. dr. rashid buttar: it's not the cancer thatreally hurts people.

statistically, 42 to 46 percent ofpatients will die – that have cancer – will die of cachexia, which is basically wastingof protein. they basically lose all their lean body mass. so that leaves between 58 and 54percent of patients that didn't die of cachexia. and the joke, which is only maybe halffunny, is that the rest of them die from the treatment. in other words, really nobody dies from thecancer. if you think about it, when a patientgets immunosuppressed and they have cancer, what actually takes them? liver failure,kidney failure, pneumonia, sepsis—but all

these things are usually associated with alsothe person getting chemo and radiation. dr. james forsythe: then i went into practicein san francisco as an oncologist with a group of oncologists that began to noticethat my long term survivor list was pretty short. and i began reading in the literature thateveryone was, that after five years of chemo, intheir own literature they recorded only a 2.1 percent survival rate. bob wright: we know that 97 percent of peoplewho undergo chemotherapy are dead in five years.

that study was placed in the 2004 editionof the journal of oncology. itwas the cancer doctors telling on themselves. do i know this study to be true? it was a massive study done by epidemiologistswho themselves were doctors. i interviewed the lead of that study justwithin the last six months and i said, “is this still true today? this was published in 2004.” and he says, “it'sabsolutely as true today as it was when we

published it back in 2004 and it may begetting worse.” when they tell us that chemo is our only chance,it's the first lie you hear. and then youhave the surgery. the second lie is, “we got it all.” you can't get it all if you're focused ontumors. you simply can't. the cancer is probably already metastatic. surgery spills it. radiation– proven not to kill the stemcells, but to enhance them.

well we always hear, “well, the cancer came back.” it didn't come back, folks, it just never left. ty: but chemotherapy is not only incrediblyineffective, it’s also hazardous material. dr. rashid buttar: let's look at chemotherapy,for example. chemotherapy – yes, it can killcancer cells, possibly. it can kill any cell. here's the issue that i have with chemotherapy. when i see somebody that is handling chemotherapy,making chemotherapy, and they have to wear hazmat suits and gloves and,you know, “can't touch it because it's toxic!” then why are you going to give it to a personwho is already sick?

does it make anysense? you ask a three year-old child this question,i would bet you that 90 percent of the three year- old children would get it. “if that looks dangerous then i shouldn'ttouch it.” that's it. it's almost like sending in napalm becauseyou've got an ant problem. yes, you'll takecare of the ants, possibly, but then you're going to take care of every other form oflife, including the grass and you're going to levelthe site just to try to get the ants.

thecollateral damage are the people that live there in the same house as the ants, meaningthat the normal endogenous healthy cells are also going to get massacred. just from a common sense standpoint, doesit make any sense to take a therapy – let's use radiation as an example. to take a therapy that we know is dangerousunder any circumstance—you break your leg, you breakyour hand, you go to the hospital, they take you in to get an x-ray, they've got the skulland cross-bones, they've got the universal triangular radiation sign as a warning.

why is there a warning there? you tell me. ty: because it's known that it's harmful. dr. rashid buttar: and how is it harmful? ty: it damages dna. dr. rashid buttar: it damages dna and whatis the consequence of damaging that dna? ty: potentially cancer. dr. rashid buttar: bingo! so then why would we take something that weknow has a very high

propensity to create cancer and use that totreat cancer? ty: it does seem insane to treat cancer withchemotherapy and radiation that actually cause cancer, doesn't it? but doctors are required to do this. as a matter of fact, they sufferadverse consequences if they do not prescribe chemo and radiation. they can even losetheir license to practice medicine. dr. grinblat: there was one good doctor whowas allowing some natural treatments when the parents were asking to introduce them.

but he could not offer it himself, and wheni asked him why, he said, “i couldn't do it,i will lose my job.” so it means oncologists here and in many othercountries i'm sure, they are very restricted in protocols. they are not free to offer good treatment. they are very restricted in their protocols. dr. joseph mercola: there are many physicianswho are truly, authentically motivated to want to help people. but there is this pervasive fear that theyare going to be discredited and ostracized in their own community when they start to embrace some of these alternative philosophies.

that's a strategy that is used to suppressthis type of information. when you’ve got tens of billions of dollarof revenue, there is no limit to the clever and sophisticated techniques that youcan acquire to manipulate the masses. dr. badakhshan: it's against the law in californiafor oncologists to recommend integrative. ty: is it really? dr. badakhshan: they cannot tell you, “goto integrative medicine.” laura bond: so unfortunately, doctors in america,australia, the uk, they can risk losing their medical license if they recommend anythingother than the gold standard, which is chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

in my mind those treatments are substandard. we know that chemotherapy andradiotherapy cause cancer, which is the very thing that they’re supposed to prevent. i mean, you look on the back of certain chemotherapy drugs like doxorubicin and you'llsee a listed side effect is leukemia. ty: and doxorubicin is a pretty popular chemo drug. laura bond: absolutely. and you know as well as i do that the latestresearch from harvard medical school and ucla is showing that chemotherapyactually stimulates cancer stem cells,

which are the germ cells from whichnew tumors arise. ty: investigative journalist laura bond justmentioned the fact that chemotherapy stimulates cancer stem cells. but what's a stem cell and what does thishave to do with cancer? what is a cancer cell and where does itcome from? dr. russell blaylock: well we used to thinkthat any cell could become cancer except for a fewlimited ones. we thought that if you irritate a cell enoughand damage its dna enough it'll become immortal and just keep growing.

now we found that's not true. only stem cells seem to be the source of cancers. stemcells are cells that haven't decided what they want to be yet. they are very primitive cellsso they can be anything – a heart cell, a brain cell, lung cell. so these stem cells are allthrough your body just sitting quietly. but if you damage the dna of the stem cellenough through free radicals or whatever, itwill become immortal and then it just keeps

producing more and more cells. it wakes upand is producing lots and lots—thousands, millions, billions of cells and it becomesa cancer. but it's the stem cell that's pouring it out. kind of like a water hose, it's pouring allthese droplets of water out. the trouble with chemotherapy and conventional treatments is they have no effect on the cancer stem cells. they only kill the daughter cells, the cellsthat are produced by it. sothe tumor will shrink and they'll claim success, but you haven't killed the stem cell so itall

just comes right back. and what they found is when it comes back,it comes back infinitely more aggressive than it did before. ty: and why would that be? dr. russell blaylock: it's kind of complexchemistry, but it has to do with the chemical changes inwhat we call the micro environment of the stem cell. what you're doing you're producinga lot of cytokines around those stem cells. these are inflammatory chemicals.

thoseinflammatory chemicals produce even greater dna damage so the cancer that comesback is more malignant that the one that started. what they are finding is, when you treat apatient with chemotherapy and radiation and you don't cure them, then you make the cancerinfinitely more aggressive and the patients usually die quicker. you have a room full of oncologists listeningto the latest drug and they'll say, “oh, thisone. we're getting incredible responses with thisdrug.” well, as they claim, whathappens with that incredible response is it

causes dramatic shrinkage of the tumorinitially because it's just killing the daughter cells. and some are not even non-malignant cells,but it's not affecting the stem cell. so thenthe cancer grows tremendously. but they can say, “oh, we get good responsefrom this chemotherapeutic.” ty: and when they say, “good response”they mean the tumor shrunk. dr. russell blaylock: they mean initiallyit shrinks the tumor, but they don't say, “well, six monthslater (or less), it actually is going to grow a lot faster and it is more likely to metastasize.”

dr. badakhshan: one of the problems with chemois because when your patient do chemo, those circulating tumor cells, cancer cellsthat we have, once you have the primary tumor, they can mutate and they become moreresistant to other treatments. ty: sayer, talk to us today about chemo andradiation resistance. sayer ji: okay, great. i feel the word itself is almost like a euphemismfor something really terrible, which is that when you are exposed to radiationthat's based on gamma radiation, it is basically ionizing, it will cause damage towhatever basic tissue it's being exposed to. so,in the same way chemotherapy is also designed

to be genotoxic. you're trying to targetfast replicating cells and by doing so, it is by definition also carcinogenic. really, when we talk about resistance to chemoand radiation, it's really just a way of blaming the victim because we're all, whenexposed to conventional chemo and radiation, we are going to be harmed and itis actually going to have a carcinogenic effect and it will often cause secondary cancers. technically, i think people need to be awarethat this isn't truly a cancer therapy. at best,it's palliative in the sense that it might

shrink a tumor. but really, the main thing i wouldlike to get across is that it is going to cause an enrichment of the actual mother cellthat's beneath the tumor, which is known as the cancerstem cell. technically you are shrinking the tumor size,but you're enriching the population of the tumorigenic cells at the very same moment. again, the idea that some people areresistant to chemo and radiation is really a false concept. everyone exposed to radiationand chemo will have secondary adverse effects,

some of which are worse than theoriginal condition they're being treated for. ty: stem cells are the key, and chemotherapyand radiation actually enrich stem cells. now,we will get back to this topic a little bit later on. but that last statement from sayer jireally shook me. everyone will have secondary adverse effectsfrom chemo and radiation. despite this fact, as we've already learned,many doctors from countries across the globe might even lose their license if they do notprescribe chemo and radiation.

are youbeginning to see the way that big pharma has its tentacles throughout this medicalcartel? especially when it comes to chemotherapy? but that's not all. chemotherapy also creates side effects thatcan then be treated with more drugs. let's listen to dr. aleksandra niedzwieckielaborate on this issue. dr. aleksandra niedzwiecki: chemotherapy businessis also a wonderful example of multiplicator.

because the side effects that chemotherapyproduces is bone marrow transplants. this is the result of chemotherapy. bleeding from the intestines that requiresdrug, anti-nausea drugs, and many others. changes in the brain. there is even a termfor it. it is called “chemo brain” because thechemotherapy affects so many organs in the body and it's the reason for prescribing moredrugs. so chemotherapy multiplies thebusiness. this is why it lasts until this day.

chris wark: chemotherapy destroys your army,destroys your immune system. not onlythat, it causes secondary cancers in the body. it makes existing cancer stem cells moreaggressive, and it causes a host of lifelong, potentially lifelong, damages to the body. from brain damage, to hearing loss, to neuropathywith loss of the use of your hands and feet, to kidney and bladder damage, bonedamage, heart damage, lung damage. it'sjust total collateral damage from chemotherapy. a.j. lanigan: we didn't know 50 or 60 years agothe role that the immune system played like we do today because we didn't have the technologyto measure it and identify it. but today,

a person who is paying attentionwill see more and more medical articles. they'll see more and more stuff come out onthe investigative news shows talking about breakthroughs in immunotherapy. and how they are, in fact, tapping and harnessingthe immune system to ferret out cancer and killit in a very specific manner, instead of this global napalming of the body with chemo andradiation. which, i don't know that it's everbeen successful at any level except to provide more money for the administration and, iguess, the folks that are coming out with that. if the money had been poured into immunotherapyover the last 50 years as it has been

these other attempts that ended up failing,i'd have to believe that the results would be awhole lot better. there would certainly have been a lot lesssuffering. i think anybodywho has met or been close to someone undergoing chemo and radiation will admit that itis a suffering instead of a treatment. dr. matthias rath: in order for having a maximumchance of fighting and overcoming cancer, weneed an intact immune system. that, too, makes the current approach of chemotherapyso unethical. it destroys – the chemotherapy – the firstorgan that is affected, actually the

target organ, is the bone marrow. the destruction of the generation of the defensecells, leukocytes, etc. are built in the bone marrow. from the very onset, from the very planningof chemotherapy from the very scientific approach, it is a deception. it is an unethical, deceptive business thatcreates illusions for millions of people and every scientist involved in it. i'm not blaming the doctors because they sometimesdon't have the education to go at that length of it.

but every scientist knows that it is a hugefraud. those who say theydon't, they should quit the job of being a scientist. ty: i appreciate what dr. rath just said,that doctors are not educated about this. they don'tunderstand that chemotherapy is a huge fraud, but that every scientist that doesn'tunderstand and admit that chemotherapy is a huge fraud, they should quit the job ofbeing a scientist. now, dr. rath and a.j. lanigan, an immunologist, just both addressedthe same topic:

that the immune system is the key to fightingcancer and to health. one of the interestingthings about chemotherapy is that it totally destroys and devastates the immune system. another unique thing about chemotherapy thatmany people don't know is that oncologists can actually make kickbacks fromprescribing chemotherapy drugs. this is aunique characteristic to the cancer industry that does not apply anywhere else inpharmaceutical drugs. dr. sunil pai: cancer is a big business. it's over $127 billion that is being spenton cancer care.

a majority of that is in the pharmaceuticaldrug costs of the care. the averagepatient now, according to a study that came out by kaiser health last year, was that theyspend between $10,000 a month and $30,000 a month. so $10,000 to $30,000 a monthjust for the chemotherapy agents that they are using. this price keeps on going up higher and higher,so the average person has a three to four months of treatment. some people have continuously ongoing treatmentso they suppress the cancer, but we're not curing the cancer for example, and that can go up to 12 months or more.

they keep coming back for “tune ups” theywould say. most people don't realize that in cancer treatmentsthat the facility, or more importantly the physician that is prescribing some ofthese medications, say if the person is a medicare patient, the government allows thephysician to charge the cost of the drug plus a percentage. medicare, for example, gives six percent onthe cost of the drug as a reimbursement for de facto aspects of overheadcosts, whatever it was. what happens is, if i was a physician andi was in that system for example, i would prescribe a $100 drug, i would get $6.00 back.

if i prescribe a $10,000 drug, i get $600back. ty: in other realms that would be called akickback. but in this realm, since it is legal—dr. sunil pai: it's a reimbursement. ty: it's a reimbursement. dr. sunil pai: right. the thing is this is the only field, in oncologicalcare, that gets that type of reimbursement. dr. irvin sahni: oncology is an unbelievablylucrative field of medicine especially when you arerunning the business side of it.

ty: oncology is an incredibly lucrative business. maybe it's because of this fact that we seestories like the story of dr. farid fata in michigan. he was an oncologist that over the lastseveral years—he was recently convicted of prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patientsthat didn't need it. many of whom didn't even have cancer, andsadly, many of whom died from the chemotherapy. dr. irvin sahni: you know when i hear aboutthis guy, you start thinking about charles manson.

you start thinking about ted bundy. you start thinking about adolf hitler, stalinor any of the many, many people that have hurt largegroups of people. mass murderers, rapists,whatever you want to call them, people that are tyrannical. this guy in one sense is worse than, say,adolf hitler because at least if you were avictim of adolf hitler you knew when the ss was coming or you knew when adolf hitlerwas coming, you better run. or if you're one african tribe attacking anotherafrican tribe,

when the guys are coming down the road withthe machine guns, you know to run. but in this case you're trusting this personwith your life. you are going to him asking forhelp. and even in cases where people really didhave cancer, he was inappropriately continuing to administer chemotherapy to themwhen they didn't need it or even worse, or just as bad or worse, giving chemotherapyto people who simply didn't even have cancer. to me that's just unbelievable. it really is mind boggling, that someone couldbe

that evil and that greedy. mike adams: he's been sentenced, i believe,to 45 years in prison. but the most disturbingthing about this is not that he was caught and that he has been sentenced to prison. thedisturbing thing is that there are hundreds of other cancer doctors out there doing thesame thing and they haven't been caught and they get away with so much deception,violating medical ethics, lying to patients. most patients never question their doctorsbecause they think the doctor is the sole authority.

most patients don't even get a second opinion. most patients believe theexplanations, the diagnoses that the cancer doctors give them. “oh, this shadow on thisx-ray, this means you have cancer. we have to start now or you're going to die.” thefear tactics that these oncologists use are highly unethical and really should be criminal. it is completely unacceptable that oncologistsprofit from the treatments that are justified by their own diagnosis.

it's kind of like taking your car to a greasymechanic somewhere that's not very honest and he says, “well,yeah, your carburetor needs to be replaced orcar is going to blow up down the road.” but he's just making that up because he wantsthe business, and if you believe him, then you're going to have to pay all this moneyfor a procedure that your car didn't need. thesame thing happens in the cancer industry every day in america. ty: i agree with mike adams. as he just mentioned, we must question ourdoctors, we

cannot place blind faith in them. we must be educated and that is why we areon this mission with the truth about cancer to educateyou on these issues. why are we addressing chemotherapy at suchlength? because you must know thehistory of chemotherapy. you must be informed about the dangers ofchemotherapy if you are going to make an informed decision. knowledge is power and people are dyingbecause they don't have this knowledge. it seems to me that the fda in the unitedstates and the tga in australia and other

regulatory bodies across the globe shouldbe actually protecting us from chemotherapy drugs and other toxic substances. burton goldberg, the voice of alternativemedicine, gave us this telling quote. burton goldberg: the agencies that were designedto protect humanity are protecting the industry they are supposed to protect us from. john rappaport: well, any drug that is onthe market available through prescription that hasserious and widespread adverse effects, as they say, was previously declared safe andeffective by the fda.

that's the only reason that drug reached themarket. so if, afterapproval, it suddenly has opposite effects, very dangerous, that's fraud. fraud at thelevel of the fda for not investigating the drug properly or concealing the truth. ty: and the fda, on its own website openlyadmits that 100,000 plus people die each and every year from properly prescribed prescriptiondrugs. what does this mean, the term“properly prescribed prescription drugs?” this means, according to john rappaport,these are drugs that were previously declared

to be safe and effective. but what does it mean to be declared “safeand effective”? what is the drug approvalprocess that would declare a drug safe and effective? sayer ji: the real interesting thing, ty,is that what they do is drug companies pour literally abillion dollars into the research needed to get fda drug approval. that starts with findinglead compounds to produce a synthetic chemical that then they go through phase one,two, three, human trials with.

but when they do this, they pour inadvertentlya billion dollars or more – all of these drug companies– into looking at turmeric, resveratrol, green tea, and literally thousands of compoundsand they find all this research showing it's superior to chemotherapy. those studies are there and people don't knowabout them. but they also can't expectthose studies on things you grow in your backyard that cure cancer to receive a billiondollars of capital because the whole game is based on producing a synthetic analog toget a patent, to get fda drug approval. and then, of course, more than 50 percentof

fda approved drugs, before the patent lifeexpires, get pulled off the market because ofthe devastation and death that they cause. so the whole system is rigged. ty: i would have to agree with sayer ji. the system is rigged. but oftentimes so are thearticles that would validate the safety and efficacy of a particular drug. let's listen to dr.russell blaylock as he describes the way that even doctors are duped with ghost-writtenarticles.

dr. russell blaylock: what happens sometimes,in fact it's happening more often than we wouldlike—and there's a lot of stuff being written by the people that look into medical journalarticles. but these pharmaceutical companies have writtenfor them “ghost articles” they call them. and what they'll do they'll get this companythat writes articles that look just like beautiful medical articles with all the graphs and chartsand numbers and references. they'll writethis article without any authors for the study, because they wrote it, and then they'll goto

an oncologist that is very well known andsay, “wouldn't you like to put your name on thisarticle? if you do it's going to be in a very prestigiousjournal – the new england journal of medicine or some oncology journal thatis very prestigious. a lot of these people are tempted becausethis puts their name even further out front. sothey'll say, “yeah, put my name on there.” so they'll put a string of names on the articlewho had nothing to do with writing it, had nothing to do with the study, and they'llend up in a very prestigious journal.

these journals they choose are the ones thataffect how doctors behave, how they treat patients. they'll read this article not knowing it'sa ghost article and they say, “gee, they've got tremendous responses and there'shardly any complications.” so they'll order the drug and then they'lltell the patient the same thing they got out of thatarticle. there's hardly any complications, patientsare doing very well, and it's a good chance that this could cure you. ty: and it's not an independent article. dr. russell blaylock: it's not an independentarticle and the doctors have been tricked

and thepatients have been tricked. dr. robert gorter: it also briefly was a bigscandal, but nobody really paid attention. that the fdaapproved about four years ago, approved an antibiotic. the data was submitted by afrench company. but it turned out the study was never done. ty: falsified completely. dr. robert gorter: it wasn't even done. ty: this next physician asked that we notshow his face, but listen to what he has to sayabout the way that money has corrupted the

drug approval process. doctor: i was actually groomed to become a person in one of the most successful clinical trials companies in the country. they picked me for medical—this is how it’s like the firm—they pick you, they help you through, and then you're supposedto join them. that's what you're supposed to do. you’re like “great, i get to join thefirm. i get the big car, get the big house, andthen you start realizing, once you start to lookingat data and how we’re manipulating data and this and that.

and the are people behindthese drugs. but that's the standard now, right? so i can get any drug passed. i can get any studymanipulated. it's a pay to play game. we sat in rooms where we had ceos of the topcompanies come in and say, “this is what it is.” the fda would say something like, “itdoesn't work.” and then within an hour we can have a phonecall with six different universities and statisticians, $3,000 each person to work on two hours of crunching numbers, flip the numbers out, three editorial reviews and then in three months the perception of that has changed.

“it’s the greatest and best miracle drugever,” although they didn’t ever show anything to support it but they make billions of dollars. as long as we put a black boxwarning everybody makes money. and the physicians, through no fault of theirown, a lot of them are just doing what they are told. but we can go back in history where did wehear that, “i’m just following orders.” that's not a good way to do it. ty: but falsifying research and producingtoxic prescription drugs, that's only the tip of theiceberg when it comes to big pharma. let's have a the listen to dr. matthias rathas he describes the way that three big pharma companies– bayer, hoechst, and basf–

they were responsible, directly, for creating theconcentration camps of birkenau and auschwitz. dr. matthias rath: we were in auschwitz becausewe have a friendship with some of the survivors that are still alive from that time. and since you asked me this question i mayjust spend a moment on something that is very little known about auschwitz. we've been told in the history book it wasa camp that was built to annihilate jewish people and slavic people and people that thenazis didn't like in the conquered countries.

but what made auschwitz the mega death exterminationcamp was actually the decision by bayer, hoechst, and basf tobuild the largest industrial plant of wartime in europe. it is called ig auschwitz, 100 percent subsidiaryof bayer, hoechst, and basf. the plant was eight kilometers long, aboutfive miles long and two miles wide. so it's agiant industrial area. and the birkenau concentration camp, the hugecamp that was featured in schindler's list, in that movie,was a deliberate decision to supply slave

laborfor the construction of this industrial plant. so without the interest that we just touchedupon that put profits over lives, auschwitz would never have had this meaning. the decision of wannsee, which was the decisionby the nazis to exterminate the jewish people, was taken roughly one year after thedecision of ig farben to build this plant. so the nazis used the death apparatus thatwas already existing because of the slave labor camp being in existence. the chimneys were burning. ig farben was “taking care”of the sick people. after three months on average, the peoplewere emaciated and so

they were just put to the gas chamber andshot up in the chimney. so i used a few more sentences than normalto exemplify. if we are talking today thatthere is an industry among humanity that sacrifices millions of lives or puts them at risk for profit—we are sometimes, you included,being attacked as being out of this world, conspiracy people. now we turn around, we look at auschwitz,we look at the industrial plant. we look at theconcentration, extermination plant being built, initially built, to serve as slave labor campfor that purpose.

and we can say, “they've done it before.” ty: i'm literally speechless. millions of jews were annihilated during worldwar ii and those concentration camps were built by big pharmato provide slave labor. as dr. rath said,they've done it before, they'll do it again. we must understand that people's lives onceagain are being sacrificed for the almighty dollar. did you learn this in history class? i certainly didn't.

but please keep an open mindas we're approaching these subjects. we must understand history if we're goingto understand the current state of modern medicine. dr. matthias rath: i'm a german. i didn't learn anything about that. i was 35 years old when ilearned about bayer, basf, the largest pharmaceutical companies at that time wereactually building, or responsible for, the extermination camp at auschwitz. then i wantedto know more and there was nothing.

so we finally found in the archives of theus, in washington, the us national library the records of, case numbers, six of the nuremberg war crime tribunals. we are told that it was only one tribunalagainst the main war criminals, but in fact there were 12. number six was against bayer, basf, and hoechstatthe same. at that time they wereforming a cartel by the name of ig farben. and that whole case lasted an entire yearagainst 24 managers of these pharmaceutical and chemical companies. it showed thatthey were largely financing the rise of the nazis to power.

that they supplied 100 percentof the raw materials so that the nazis could lead the war including 100 percent of thesynthetic gasoline, rubber, 100 percent of the explosives. the report came to the conclusion, the usprosecutor said, “without ig farben, world war ii would not have been possible.” in other words, we have to redefine history. even ifwe talk about cancer today, we need to know those things. that these interests forexpanding patented product markets worldwide—they

were risking, eventually they wereresponsible for the death of 60 million people in world war ii. that shows you the dimension of the topicthat we are talking about today. there isnothing, absolutely nothing that these interests will not do if the profit is high enough,then and now. ty: did you know that one of the 12 nuremburgtribunals was actually against big pharma? world war ii actually could never have happenedwithout the involvement of big pharmaceutical companies, specifically igfarben. dr. rath mentioned patents.

the cancer industry – yes, it is an industry– is part and parcel with the multinational pharmaceuticalcompanies. and the way that multinationalpharmaceutical companies make their money is through patents. big pharma patents drugs and they call thatmedicine. but do patented molecules, this medicinethat they’ve created, does this have a place in modern healthcare? or i think maybe thebigger question is, can we, as mortal men, improve on nature?

dr. jonathan wright: patent medicines do notbelong in human bodies and i know i keep saying “patent medicines” and people aren't accustomedto that. they think of the 19th century. i'm sorry, but all the giant pharmaceuticalcompanies are, are holders of patents for molecule after molecule after molecule thatis sort of like what belongs in the body. justsort of enough to do something, but enough to cause a lot of damage, too. so if we're going to be as healthy as we canin the bodies we now have, we have to use only the substance and energy that belongsin the body.

it makes no sense using patentmedications. patents are wonderful for certain things,protection of intellectual property rights and so forth, but patents have no placein healthcare. dr. nalini chilkov: you can't patent nature,which is why we don't get a lot of money for researchin plant medicine, but then they'll make a molecule that looks like the molecule fromnature and then that pharmaceutical company can own it. but that's not really the sameanimal. mike adams: you cannot take and isolate everychemical out of a plant and expect that plant

to have the same healing powers. this is why chemical cancer medicine fails97 percent of the time. whereas plant medicine, being holistic, issafer, it’s more efficacious (in other words it works better), it's more affordable,readily available, and you don't have to pay patent fees to mother nature. dr. patrick quillin: francis bacon was thefounder of the modern scientific principle in 1600. hesaid, “nature to be commanded must be obeyed.”

what we're doing in modern medicineis saying, “we don't care about the rules, we're going to change the rules. we know thatyou need vitamin d and sunshine, but we're going to say we can't patent that so we'regoing to try and come up with a drug that bypasses all of those pathways.” nature to becommanded must be obeyed. ty: i love that quote from dr. quillin, “naturein order to be commanded must be obeyed.” and i think that's where big pharmaceuticalcompanies fail because they try to take nature and maybe a molecule from nature andtweak it and change it, but then it never

works as well as the original molecule. why do they tweak and change it? so that they can patent it. we've already seen aboutthe greed in this patent medicine industry, this cancer industry. remember early in theshow we talked about the war on cancer. i have a question for you. what if the real waron cancer was actually a turf war aimed at protecting its profits?

dr. stanislaw burzynski: this is a total war. the texas medical board is going after mydoctors, is going after my assistants. they are suing everybody because of usingthe treatment which is non-conventional. ty: according to dr. burzynski, the real waris actually being fought against doctors who dareto step outside the box and use any kind of non-conventional treatment that is notapproved. dr. burzynski has been persecuted heavilyfor decades.

another doctor that has been heavily persecutedis dr. jonathan wright. his crime? using natural medicine that was outside ofthe standard of care and was not an approved treatment. dr. jonathan wright: and on may 6th, 1992they raided our clinic with guns drawn. ty: no kidding? dr. jonathan wright: no kidding. yes. they told the king county sheriff that wewere selling drugs.

because remember they called feces a drugand so vitamins are drugs, anything used for treatment is, according to them,a drug. okay, we were selling drugs. so theking county sheriff's office was expecting drug dealers and, they raided with guns. one of them came in and stuck his gun withina few feet of the receptionist’s face. onething though, they didn't have jack boots. you've heard of the jack boots and all that. they had on regular shoes, and even thoughthey had guns, they wore regular shoes

and kicked the doors in with their regularshoes. the doors were locked. you see theyhad the raid shortly before 9 am. and how do we know they kicked the doors in? because somebody was sitting outside in awheelchair waiting for his appointment and he saw these guys come and kick the doorsin. they came in with guns and what do they do? they herded all the employees into acorner of the reception area and they proceeded to start seizing equipment, and medicalrecords, and payroll records, and banking

records, and everything. and they told the kingcounty police it was because we were dealing so anyway, that's what they did and they empaneleda grand jury. eighteen months later,nothing. they empaneled a second grand jury, another18 months, nothing. noindictments. after the second grand jury failed to returnany indictment and the first one did, too, they then announced to the newspapers– not to me, they did not call me or my attorney – they announced to the newspapersthey were closing the investigation.

and both my attorney and me, we read about it in the newspaper. never got the patient records back. never got the banking records back. we had to reconstruct asbest we could on the banking records. on the patient records, we just had to askpeople to tell us what they told us before. but no, that never came back. ty: so dr. wright lost all of his patientrecords and in the end he was never convicted ofanything.

this almost sounds like there is a conspiracy,doesn't it? people are afraid touse that term “conspiracy” because people might think you're nuts. but what if i told youthat the united states senate concluded that there was a conspiracy to suppress naturalcancer treatments. would that matter to you? now people hear this and they may say, “youknow this sounds conspiratorial.” you’veheard of the fitzgerald report. dr. jonathan wright: i have a copy of someof the conclusions over here. should i read them to people?

ty: absolutely, yes.the fitzgerald report. tell the viewers what the fitzgerald reportwas. dr. jonathan wright: i'll tell them. or you can tell them and i'll just read it. ty: you go ahead and tell them. dr. jonathan wright: the fitzgerald reportwas published in the congressional record, folks,the congressional record. actually, it was an appendix to the congressionalrecord. and fitzgerald was an investigator for theinterstate commerce commission.

now, i'mgoing to read this because i've got to read you the citations because people willotherwise think it is conspiracy theory. 1953. he was investigator for the interstate commercecommission, a senator whose grandson had been cured of cancer by naturalmeans, and had a lot of trouble getting that cure done, asked him to investigate. now here's just one quote. fitzgerald says, “myinvestigation to date should convince this committee that a conspiracy does exist.” this istestimony before congress by a chief investigator

for the interstate commercecommission. “a conspiracy does exist to stop the freeflow and use of drugs.” he calls itall drugs because, i'm sorry, but most people in conventional medicine call even vitaminsdrugs. if it's a treatment, it's a drug. and you do know that fda declared stool adrug some two years ago. and then they gotso much ridicule from the academic centers that were doing these fecal transplants thatthey undeclared stool a drug. but for a while, feces was a drug.

how do you like that? anyway, back to fitzgerald. i know. it just seems weird. ty: insane. dr. jonathan wright: okay. “...to stop thefree flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce, which allegedly have solid therapeutic value. public and private funds had been thrownaround like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics.”

notice he uses theword destroy. what he's talking about is the occasions whenan fda went in with sledgehammers and broke up royal rife equipment in the officeof dr. ruth drown where they made someone throw all of his books that he hadwritten on one aspect of energetic medicine. they were all burned in a bonfire in new jersey. book burning. sledgehammers. now fitzgerald didn't say that. you can find that otherpart. i'll go back to fitzgerald, but that's whathe means by “destroy.”

that's why he usedthe word “destroy.” okay. “to destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientificresearch laboratories, which do not conform to theviewpoint of medical associations.” it's got nothing to do with the law, it'sgot to do with a viewpoint of medical associations. “benedict fitzgerald, benedict s. fitzgerald,”excuse me, “junior special counsel, united states committee on interstate foreigncommerce, 1953.” and his report goes into a pages-long reportof suppression of natural treatments and it's in the congressional record.

and did anybody ever do anything about this? no. and partof what he says in that report is that the collusion, the actual conspiracy, is betweenlos federales at fda, the patent medicine companies,and the ama. that's where theconspiracy that fitzgerald identifies is. ty: the fitzgerald report of 1953 which concluded“there was an active conspiracy to suppress natural cancer treatments in theunited states” was due to the suppression oflaetrile.

more suppression of laetrile followed overthe next couple of decades. dr. joseph mercola: first of all what is laetrile? laetrile is also called amygdalin andvitamin b17. and there actually have been investigationsshowing that it has some benefit to the use of treatment of cancer,and it may be because cyanide is a component of laetrile and that may also be a nutritionaldeficiency. it provides some benefits that are nutrients that the body needs to fight these malignancies. but anyway, there was a japanese researcherat sloan kettering who was studying this and dr. ralph moss was an investigative journalistthere at the time and he started

covering it. he appeared to have beneficial results, butthen for some unbeknownst reason the information was suppressed andthat information was not allowed to be disseminated and dr. moss wrote extensivelyabout it. it was about mid-1970s. i'm not sure how beneficial laetrile is. i have no experience withit, but it is an interesting example of how this type of—these alternative approachesare routinely suppressed when they are opposedto the traditional, conventional approaches.

because there is such a significant amountof funding that is involved. the big agencies, the fda, of course, theama and american cancer society which are all in some way influenced by the drug cartels. they are funded to oppose these andessentially classify them as quackery. it's a common strategy that is used for manyalternative treatments. laetrile being one of the earlier ones wherethey targeted, but there are dozens and dozens since then. dr. stanislaw burzynski: there is mercilessharassment by the authorities of doctors who areinventors.

so now in going through three years of harassmentby texas medical board. and one of the reasons why i am going throughthis is i use a treatment which is not standard treatment for pancreatic cancer. i use this for the type of incurable lungcancer, like malignant mesothelioma, the patient is survivingnow five years. he would be dead a long time ago. and these results were evaluated byoutside oncologists. amazing results, okay? i am being harassed because the texasboard is saying, “you use a treatment which

is not standard.” dr. rashid buttar: if you do the standardof care and you give chemo and people die, it’s okay. ifyou don’t do the standard care and people live, that’s not okay. it is politically incorrect. so this is the amazing thing: you take a poison,you give it to people, they die, it’s part and parcel of the normal status quo or modusoperandi, this is how it’s supposed to be. now you break that.

you actually do something that’s not toxic,you help patients, they live. “hey. we don’t care whether the patient lives or not. that’s irrelevant, it’s not part ofthe standard of care. dr. tullio simoncini: the risk of reprisal,the risk of the jail, and the persecution. it isunbelievable. they tried to shut me down in any way. yes. because, you know—tell meone big revolutionary discovery that it was not shut down.

tell me one. there is nochance, no possibility to escape. because when you see something that is verynew and people cannot think about it, you are persecutedbecause you destabilize all the system. so any discovery, big, true discovery, makesthe old system useless. that’s why you areshut down. because we live in a medieval status. this is the real reason why cancer isstill killing millions of people. dr. stanislaw burzynski: it’s not easy totreat these advanced patients because you

arecontinuously being harassed for doing this. it is incredible. we should be rewarded. weshould be set as the example. we are saving the lives of people who havebeen sentenced to die. no! we are unmercifully harassed by lawyers, bypeople who know nothing about treatment, who are stupid puppetsof the guys behind who know very well what we can offer, whether they’re actingthese guys like in nazi germany and they are simply obeying orders because they are programmedthis way.

i think maybe with time they will do sometype of nuremburg trials. all of these whitecollar nicely dressed lawyers and clerks who are chewing the money of taxpayers maybe held accountable for what they do. because many people died because of theiractions. they do it secretly. they are not exposed. that feel that they are beyond anypunishment and they can continue to do this type of work. dr. rob verkerk: if you look at someone whohas cancer—and you’ve had for a long time

ineurope this notion that, if you’re using a natural approach, you run the risk as adoctor of having your license revoked. if you’re a nonmedical practitioner, youcan be basically put into jail as the cancer act 1939 in the ukto deal with you. this is utterly wrong because an individualthat has cancer is just another individual whose body needs nourishment and support morethan a person who is healthy. and yetto have that denied to those individuals is a real loss of fundamental rights of freedomsand that needs to be changed.

ty: it’s a crime. dr. rob verkerk: it is a crime, indeed. dr. stanislaw burzynski: maybe we need tobe awakened because, obviously, this is killing people. ty: if you withhold treatment that can savesomeone’s life, isn’t that the same thing asmurder? i would have to agree with dr. burzynski anddr. verkerk. but this is not the onlytime that the medical industry has been guilty of conspiracy against natural physicians.

dr. patrick vickers: in 1987 four chiropractorsfrom illinois, particularly chester wilk – he was the head chiropractor that took the amato court – they actually took the entire american medical association to court. accusing them of having a branch within theirorganization designed to eliminate chiropractic as a profession, a licensed professionthey were trying to eliminate through the use of propaganda. a federal district court judge in illinois,susan getzendanner, in 1987, found the ama guilty of conspiracy. that was the judgment.

so if anybody tells you when you’re talkingabout these things, “oh, you’re just a conspiracy theorist,” you can lead themstraight to the wilk versus the ama, the court rulingof 1987, and the judgment was guilty of conspiracy. ty: are you beginning to get the picture here? this is not conspiracy theory, this isconspiracy fact according to the courts. now, why are we sharing this with you? becauseyou must understand the belly of this beast if you’re going to believe the truth.

one of the many victims of this conspiracyto suppress natural cancer treatments is a man namedjason vale. last year i had the privilege of interviewinghim and he shared with me the true story of how he was arrested, convicted,and spent five years in federal prison – not for murder or rape or assault – but forselling an unapproved cancer treatment, namely apricot seeds, which contain laetrile, onhis website. but jason is not alone. almost 80 years ago a scientist named royalraymond rife faced jail time for using an unapproved treatment.

r. webster kehr: in the 1930s, royal rife,dr. royal rife who was a microbiologist, knew thatthere were microbes inside the cancer cells. and he came up with an electro-medicinedevice, a couple of them actually, which was designed to do nothing but kill the microbesinside the cancer cells. dr. jonathan wright: he did something verysmart, taking from einstein the cue that everything has its own vibratory frequency – moleculesdo, people do, everything has its vibratory frequency. he determined the vibratory frequency of thosemicroorganisms and then he sent in a beam, which is why the machine iscalled a beam ray – he sent in a beam that

had a dissonant frequency. what’s that? have you ever tried to tune your radio andyou tune it just right and it’s nice and clear, crystal clear, but you go a littlebit off and it’s inaddition to the talk? that’s dissonance. you are almost on the right frequency, butnot quite. so he sends in a dissonant frequency thatis almost what these bacteria do, but they

can’t stand that because they are vibratingand are really close. so basically they ruptureand die, all the bacteria do. he beamed them, and the cancers were cured. now, it’s more complicated than that. he had to follow certain doses of rays andcertain days and so forth, but the cancers were curedand it was celebrated in the los angeles times. he reports that he was visited by two people,one being morris fishbein of the ama, who was president at the time, and another person.

i believe him because i have read thatsame report in a doctor’s book from alabama who was curing cancer with intravenoushydrochloric acid. i’m not kidding you, it’s published forthree years, i’ve got all of his reports. he was visited by two men from the ama sayingthat he should sell them his treatments or he would never be published again. he refused to sell and he was never publishedagain. i have the three years’ worth of reports. i can’t get any more, there weren’t anymore. rife had the same visitation and so did othercancer-treating practitioners.

visitations from ama telling us, “you sellus your stuff or we’ll do you.” r. webster kehr: he developed this technology. the american medical association tried tobuy him out and he refused because he did nottrust them. good for him. so the food anddrug administration went down and destroyed his laboratory, his equipment, anddestroyed all of his inventory. ty: in the end, dr. rife’s lab was burned,his records were stolen, his life was ruined, and heeventually died of a drug overdose.

harry hoxsey is another example of a man whowas treating and curing cancer naturally that was heavily persecuted. now, this is a story that is near and dearto my heart because in 1996 when my father, graham bollinger,was diagnosed with stomach cancer we were doing everything that we possiblycould to take him to what is called the hoxsey clinic in tijuana, mexico. unfortunately, dad died before we could gethim to the hoxsey clinic, which is now called the biomedical center. that’s why it was so exciting to me andthe truth about

cancer team to travel to tijuana, mexico andvisit the biomedical center to learn more about harry hoxsey’s treatment, which isstill being used there. it’s called the hoxseytonic, and the rest of that protocol. another exciting thing for me personally wasto be able to meet liz jonas. now, liz jonas is thesister of mildred nelson, and mildred nelson was harry hoxsey’s chief nurse. liz jonas: i’m liz jonas and my sister wasmildred nelson. i have no medicalbackground. mine is business.

mildred was the medical one in our family. my mom had cancer – ovarian and uterus – andthey had planted radiation in her body and burned her very bad and then told herto go home and die. my dad heard aboutharry hoxsey who was in dallas, texas and we lived in jacksboro, which is about 90miles. so my dad called my sister. she was the oldest in our family. there were seven ofus and asked her to come drive for him. he was an old-timey rancher.

she said, “what are you going to dallasfor?” she said, “to get parts for the tractor?” and he said, “no. i’m taking your mother to the doctor.” so she came and drove. andthrough the day, hoxsey found out she was a nurse and offered her a job. and my dadtold him, “no, she doesn’t want to work for you. she thinks

you’re a quack.” he offered for her to go look in all his files,but she didn’t. she couldn’t talk my motherand daddy out of this, so she decided to go to work for him to prove he was a quack andto save her mom. our mom lived to be 99 years old. ty: what a great story. liz’s sister, mildred nelson, wanted toprove that harry hoxsey was a quack. but she ended up becoming his chief nurseand their mom lived to be 99 years

old. now the head of the ama at that time was morrisfishbein. he was the same manwho was head of the ama when royal raymond rife was destroyed. and the amawanted to buy out the hoxsey formula. the almost signed the paperwork, but... liz jonas: they got to the point of signingthe papers and he said, “you have to make thisavailable to everybody.” and they said, “we may not make it availableto anybody.

wemay not use it even.” and he said, “no, then i won’t sell it.” ty: so they basically wanted to buy it andbury it. liz jonas: bury it, yes. ty: harry was arrested numerous times. liz jonas: numerous. ty: what were the charges? liz jonas: all different kinds. just whatever they came up with, you know.

but the patientssometimes—he always carried a roll of bills in his pocket with him, a big roll of bills. andhe made his money, in my understanding, in penny stock, all. penny stock. but he carried a big roll of bills with himand sometimes he’d bail himself out. sometimes he’d juststay in jail. the patients would come and bring food andthey would circle the whole block. so they would just let him out to get ridof the patients.

ty: wow! if that’s not a testimony to harry and thetreatment, then nothing is. so the patientswould surround the jail. liz jonas: yes. surround the jail. can you imagine? ty: no, i can’t. i mean not today. but this was back when, 40s, 50s?

liz jonas: in the 40s. but his patients were very loyal to him becausethe ama and fda, if they would find out they were going tomail medicine to a patient and they would bestanding at the patient’s door and take the medicines so the patients couldn’t haveit. when mildred moved the clinic to mexico, hetold her, he said, “you have to drop the hoxsey name.” and she said, “i can’t do that.” and he said, “yeah, you have to.

that’swhat they’re after. they are mad at me. they’re after me.” so that is where the biomedical came in. but then the patients wouldn’t drop it. we’re stillknown as the hoxsey clinic. and that’s what we’re put on this earthfor. ty: it is. liz jonas: really.

if you really stop and think about it, we’resupposed to help each other. ty: that’s right. i have to agree with liz. one of the main reasons that we are put hereon earth is to help other people and i commend her and the doctors thereat the hoxsey clinic, the biomedical center, for doing this. one of the doctors there at the biomedicalcenter that we interviewed, was dr. elias gutierrez. here is some of his interview.

dr. elias gutierrez: basically, what everythingspins around is what is known as the hoxsey formula. it’s a liquid made with a combination ofseveral herbs and minerals. andbecause of the way that it’s put together, it’s selectively targets only the malignantcells. any cell with bad dna or bad metabolism, thoseare the ones that are going to be destroyed. of course, there’s a few vitamins. there is diet, which is not a difficult oneto follow and we also use a lot of herbal, both occidentaland chinese herbal formulas.

ty: the formula that you’re using, is thispretty much the same formula that harry hoxsey used 80-100 years ago? dr. elias gutierrez: exactly the same. it was passed down from hoxsey over to mildredand then mildred brought it into the clinic and thenshe passed it on to liz who is the owner now. she is mildred’s sister. and we still use basically exactly the sameformula as it was being used in texas. ty: so if somebody comes into the hoxsey clinichere and they want treatment, how long

does treatment typically last? dr. elias gutierrez: this is a clinic thatdoes something in a different way than most of the regularthings. we try to do everything on a single day. people come in in the morning. they getregistered. they go through the laboratory, they go throughthe x-rays, they get their consultation, a very thorough physical examination. and then we have to wait until we get thereports from the laboratory x-rays, which

takesa couple of hours. and then we call the people up for a secondvisit in the afternoon and we explain all the findings to them. we give them their instructive, their treatments,and they just pick up their supplies and maketheir payments and go home. this is something you can do at home. you don’t have to be necessarily hospitalizedto do it. they stay on the diet and they come back fora checkup every three, every six

months, every year. eventually they just come back every two orthree years. ty: being a one-day treatment, the hoxseytreatment is relatively affordable? dr. elias gutierrez: i think so. and we’re the cheapest clinic in town. ty: are you really? dr. elias gutierrez: oh yeah. david olson: eight and a half years ago, backin august of ’06, i couldn’t lay down. as amatter of fact zack was with me on a motor

car trip on the railroad. the seat belt startinghurting on the way back from the trip. we went about 300 miles, and the seat beltstarted feeling tight. the next week i had another trip and comingback the seat belt was also tight. and shortly after that i couldn’t lay down. i went to mayo clinic and was diagnosed. the first time they said i didn’t have cancerand in a two week period they found out i

did have cancer pretty bad and it was non-hodgkin’s lymphoma. i had it in the esophagus, the liver, thekidney, lymph nodes all under the arm and in the groin. i had a tumor bigger than a volleyball inthe stomach and then in the bones, stage 4. and the doctor gave me three days to threemonths. one doctor says, “you know the last guywe treated like you made it three days.” so itwas not a very good forecast. the day i found out that i had it in the bones,i found out

about it at two o’clock up on the tenth floor of the rochester mayo clinic, at the gonda building. things looked very bleak. on the way, after we left rochester, for instance,we had to be at a flight in minneapolis at four o’clock that dayand didn’t find out till after two and we made theplane by 13 minutes to get down here. it’s just no chance of living afterwards. but here it’s been eight and a half yearslater and i’ve not had cancer for eight years andthree months. they have not found it.

the mayoclinic could not find, they haven’t found it here. there is no cancer that is visibleanymore. we started at the mayo clinic, had 13 doctorsat mayo clinic. and they gave me thesame forecast of three days to three months. and i went up to the university ofminnesota and then to fairview hospital and masonic cancer center. i received a death sentence from 17 doctors,and the 18th one that was down here, dr. gutierrez, and it was no big deal to him. it was bad, yes, but nothing special.

and, as faras i know, i was taking more medicine, more tonic than any other patient i ever talkedto so far. i’ve talked to a lot of patients that ihave sent down here and other patients. i was taking the strongest dose they had,but i never missed a day of work. it neveraffected my ability to do whatever, but it made the total difference in life. and this life isfantastic. i mean, i’ve got three grandsons, but theonly one that can come with me once

in a while, the other two are very busy. this one here gets to come with me. we do a lot of things together including comedown for jeep rides and stuff. we would never have been able to have thatif i hadn’t been here so i could get some help, a lot of help. life. life is great. ty: what an encouraging story from dave whohas been cancer free now for eight years due

to the hoxsey formula, and who was told by17 traditional doctors that he had no hope and that even the toxic chemotherapy drugscouldn’t save him. i want to be clear. we are not saying that everyone that worksin the medical industry, the cancer industry, or the pharmaceutical companiesare bad people. not at all, that is not whatwe’re trying to say. there are a lot of good people that are workingin the medical industry, the cancer industry and for those at alphabet agencies,even the fda. we’re not criticizingeverybody that works for those agencies.

what we are saying in this documentary, andwe’re trying to communicate this fact, is that the entire medical system has been hijacked. if a plane is hijacked it is not the pilot’sfault that it’s hijacked. in the same manner, the fact that the medicalindustry has been hijacked is not your doctor’s fault thatthat’s happened. the fact that the pharmaceutical companies,their sole purpose is to make money. that’snot the fault of any person that works for the pharmaceutical companies. the sales repsand other people that work for those companies,

it’s not their fault. we want to be clearthat we communicate that. the problem is that the system is broken. money is driving the decisions of the peoplethat are the leaders in those industries and not the health of the people that take theirproducts. the number one goal, for big pharmaceuticalcompanies at least, is shareholder profits. they are publicly traded companies and thebottom line is their bottom line.

over the course of our travels, we were privilegedto meet a couple of people that had previously worked for pharmaceutical companies. but once they realized that the numberone driving force behind those decisions in big pharma is making money and notnecessarily getting people healthy, both of them got out, to their credit. dr. subrata chakravarty: i would hear a lotin our meetings and the town hall meetings that it wasall about making the shareholders happy. and i’m like, “you know what? i don’t want tomake the shareholders happy.

that’s not the point of what we are doing. we want to beable to solve bigger problems than to see how much money goes into the shareholders’pockets.” tara mann: in 2011, i just, kind of by chance,found a documentary and the title caught my eye. it was called dying to have known. it was one of the documentaries about thegerson therapy. i remember watching it. it was almost stages when i was watching thevideo.

first it was, “what in the world are theytalking about?” they were talking about peoplethat had late stage cancer and they had somewhere to go and they were surviving. andi’m like, “i have never heard of this.” so i keep watching and, as a pharmaceuticalrepresentative, the doctors teach us very well that we practice evidence-based medicine. ty: right. tara mann: evidence-based medicine. so i’m watching it and i’m thinking, “thisall sounds

really good, but i wonder what kind of evidencethey have.” so they switched to thephysician and, i believe it’s china that is doing the gerson therapy, and i just rememberhim sitting in front of this huge filing cabinet. and the person that was interviewing himtold him, “just pick files.” and he just started opening these drawersof all these files of patients, all this evidence. all this evidence. so i’m going, “wow. how is this possible, there is evidence?”

then thedocumentary goes on to talk about max gerson, the way that the therapies weresuppressed. and that—i remember sitting up on the couch,on the edge of the couch like… you know, it was like the band aid being rippedoff, that moment of just disbelief. my whole life. my mother’s a nurse. i mean, we grew up at the doctor’s officeand at the nursing home. i had no idea.

i worked in a hospital, i was a phlebotomist. i worked in alab. my whole life was medicine. and so it was just shocking in a really impactfulway, immediately. immediately it changed my life. so i wanted to research, but i really thoughtthat my research would disprove it. ithought, “this is really awesome, but it’s hard to believe.” so i started researching and ifelt really strange.

i felt like i was alone and i’d go to workevery day in this industry and i’m thinking, “do they know this? do they know what i know?” ty: now to her credit, tara mann used to makea ton of money working for big pharmaceutical companies. but once she realized that they weren’thealing people, that they were actually harming people, she gotout. and then she and her husband stevebegan a nonprofit called cancer crackdown. that’s one of the charities that we at thetruth about cancer are happy to donate to.

tara just mentioned the gerson therapy. we will learn a lot more about the gersontherapy in episode eight so be sure that you tune in for that one. but in the meantime,we are about to hear of some telling quotes from doctors about the absurdity and thearrogance of trying to force treatments on people against their will. dr. gaston cornu-labat: if i tell you, “youhave to do this,” which is very typical of conventionalmedicine, “you have to do this.” there is a degree of arrogance in that statement.

“thisis what you need.” given the complexity of the human experience,for me to presume that i know what you need, that is a tremendousarrogance. that’s common in medicine,it’s very common. “this is what you need to do, and if youdon’t do it of course, i’ll force you. i’ll have somebody force you.” and that happens, we know that. we know that when somebody doesn’t choosefor their kids the exact path, we’ll have somebody enforcing that so that they choose that because that’s what they need.

oh my god, whatarrogance. what a humongous arrogance. mike adams: it was best called by john rappaport,a “scientific totalitarianism.” i think it’s agreat term for it. some people call it “medical fascism.” it means that the so calledscience, which is really just corporate driven fraudulent science, but the so calledscience-driven medicine is being forced upon you now in absolute violation of theamerican medical association’s code of medical ethics, which says that the patient mustbe given the choice.

the patient must be informed. they talk about informed consent. this is supposed to be a pillar of the ethicalpractice of medicine in the united states ofamerica and really all around the world. that is now being stripped away. parents arebeing told, “you must submit your children to these interventions whether you like itor not.” that’s a violation at every level, of humanrights, of human dignity, of parental rights.

chris wark: parents need to know and theyneed to prepare because if you are in a situation as a parent and your child is diagnosedand you don’t want them to have chemotherapy, you need to prepare to run. because if not, they are going to come takeyour kids. ty: was chris wark exaggerating? will the government really come and take yourchildren? jay matthews: i’m a pharmacist by my profession,so i have been practicing now for about 20 years. when my daughter was diagnosed about threeyears ago, we decided the whole treatment was just huge and barbaric and theoptions were just very limited.

i think i ranthat by you at that time. the prognosis was less than 20 percent, amputationwas almost definite. when the swelling happened, that was mistakenumber one. we went to the emergencyroom. at that point i thought, “well, look, ifthey didn’t have significant successes with that…” and i thought that in an ethical standpointif you don’t have very much you shouldn’t be doing that much.

that’s what i thought. i didn’t think that they would pursue suchan aggressive means to get it. at that point, thedoctor was – again, depending on who you get – we had a physician that was verystubborn and thinks that he has all the answers, didn’t know anything about what wewere approaching. ty: they kept selena. jay matthews: selena. they had armed guards at that point becausethey knew where my mind was at.

ty: they had armed guards in the room. jay matthews: in the room. they knew where my mind was at because mymind was to take her back to the facility of my choice. and a facility that would give her a chanceat having some sort of a normal life. they came with their lawyers and they said,“if you don’t sign consent, we’re going totake custody of the child. you’re going to lose custody of the child.” ultimately, the judge said,

“you’re not an expert, he is.” the oncologist, he’s the expert. there’s nothing hecan do and the custody was given to the state. ty: so they took custody of selena. jay matthews: correct. and then they started aggressive chemotherapyat that point. this isdocumented. they knew that, but they continued with thechemo. and i think that any adult would have been just saying, “hey, look. my arm’s deteriorating,

every dose yougive my arm is opening up. it’s just opening up and the wound is gettingbigger.” i pleaded with the physician. i had no way of even getting second opinionsat that point because the state’s got custody. nor can i go to her physician and say, “thisis wrong, you’ve got to take a look at it.” because they wouldn’t approach us becausewe don’t have custody.

“you’re not the legal custodian.” ty: you don’t have custody of your own child. ty: the state of illinois did. jay matthews: the state of illinois. so i pleaded with him. i said, “the arm’s not going to standit. it’s not going to make it.” that's all i could do. and every time, a bunch of about eight whitecoats come into the room, look at her wound getting biggerand bigger with every dose.

as much as ipleaded with them, as much as they saw. the wound got so big, got infected with mrsa. they didn’t need all these cultures at thatpoint. and the wound, if you see it, it’s horrific. it’s so graphic you will not believe that’sa human arm, the way that it deteriorated over time. it was just incredible. it was graphic for her. that’s post-traumatic stress for her. forus certainly it is.

then in the end, an amputation was required. after that point we still didn’t have custodyafter the amputation for another six months. we have custody of her now. we havecustody now. we had the best insurance and i think, really,it’s the worst thing you can have. we had the best insurance. to have the best insurance means every drugthat is covered will be used and was used. every drug that wasn’t covered...

i mean, he would have used avastin. avastin is another $400,000 drug. he would haveused it if it was covered, but ultimately i was in a position where i could have droppedher from my insurance. the state didn’t pay for it. all this $2.2 million was paid out to thehospitals. ty: $2.2 million. jay matthews: yes, $2.2 million and it wasall paid from my insurance.

todd jones: it’s something where everythingjust blurs. your energy leaves your body, you’re in shock. it’s traumatic and you just look at eachother and you don’t know what to say. i called my boss. i was supposed to be at a trade show and iwas bawling. i said,“man, we just got some bad news.” but after the first month, and i shared thiswith you too, we made a decision that we wanted to—since the cancer was so far downand in remission as they say, and they told

us themselves. that we were like, “okay. you know what? thank you for your business. we’re good now. we’re going to go ahead and build her upnaturally now that the cancer and half of her system has been “chemoed,”chemically cleansed, we’re going to go in and put in the natural good stuff now andsee how we can get her to respond there.” well, the hospital didn’t like that.

when that happened, it wasn’t three dayslater and there was that very, very, very loud aggressiveknock at our door. i’m thinking, “thatdoesn’t sound like anybody i know. nobody knocks like that.” it almost sounded like aboot. so i went to the door and it was the officeof child services and they came and they said, “look, the hospital called. you have taken your child out of treatmentand you need to bring your child right back to treatment.”

i’m like, “well, we’re finished withthat treatment. we’re just going to continue on withanother treatment.” i’m the parent. i even looked up the alaska statutes. parentshave a legal right to decide how their children get treated. what i didn’t know is it doesn’tmatter what the statutes say, and the administrative truth about that is that the child is award of the state. cassandra callender: the department of childrenand families was called because we were

wasting time according to the doctors. they wanted me in for chemotherapy a weekafter my biopsy was done at hartford and they camein and they took me because they said that i had to get the chemo. ty: what do you mean when you say, “theytook you?” cassandra callender: they came into my housein october around halloween and they said thati had to go with them. ty: and who is “they?” cassandra callender: the dcf workers.

ty: okay. they actually came into your home and tookyou from— cassandra callender: yes. they had about 12 police squad cars surroundingmy house and the block and they basically just came into myhouse and said, “we have to go.” my momwasn’t even home. i was hiding in my closet upstairs becausei had no idea what was going on. ty: were you the only one at the house?

i called my mom crying and she came home immediately to police and dcf workers surrounding our house. after about two weeks of being in the hospital,going through courts and judges, they got the order that they could force me to do thechemotherapy. at that point i was in the hospital. i couldn’t leave my room. there was a guard sittingoutside of my door. i couldn’t use my phone. i couldn’t contact my mom. basically, itcame down to one morning they came in and

they strapped me to the bed and theysedated me for surgery. ty: really?cassandra callender: yes, because you haveto have a port to have chemotherapy, which is whyi have a scar. ty: and you didn’t want a port. cassandra callender: no, because i didn’twant the chemo and the idea of having an object inside of me grossed me out and so they camein to insert an iv and i said, “no.” so theyhad to have the officers and the security guards and the staff come in.

and they broughtin a bed that had straps and they had to tie me down by my wrists and my ankles. and a woman came in and they put a needlein my neck to knock me out and the next thing i knew i woke up and i was in the recoveryroom. dr. rashid buttar: well, i would like to knowhow is that any different from nazi germany, whenpeople were put into concentration camps and experimented on or forced to do certainthings? i don’t know what the difference is. because we live in the united states, theland

of the free, the home of the brave, so thatmakes it different? it’s amazing to me that the entire populationof the united states doesn’t know about thisand the reason they don’t know about it is because it’s shushed up by the media. nobodywants to talk about it. but this is no different than what was donein germany or when people are basically raped and pillaged. to me that’s the same thing. mike adams: this is unacceptable.

this is incompatible with a free society. and frankly thedoctors that engage in that kind of activity and the hospital staff that strap people downand force chemotherapy into these children, they should be arrested. they should go tojail just like this other oncology doctor who’s serving 50 or 45 years in prison now. dr. rashid buttar: when people allow a governmentto dictate the foods they put in their mouth and the medicines they take into their bodies,their souls will soon be in the same sorry state as those who are ruled by tyranny.

as much as i would like to take credit forthat phrase, that was uttered by thomas jeffersonover 250 years ago. dr. matthias rath: we talked about concentrationcamps. they are surrounded by a fence. ifsomeone tries to escape, the fences of the modern concentration camp, the ones thatconfine the cancer patient within the perimeter of conventional thinking, of chemotherapythinking, they are being haunted. how many court cases have been filed aroundthe world for withdrawing custody of parents who went into natural health as opposedto staying within the confines, within the

fences, of conventional chemotherapy treatments? it’s nothing else. the dimension of a child dying in a concentrationcamp or dying from leukemia that is being intoxicated by chemotherapyas opposed to choosing natural paths are the same. the parents are losing a child. the family is losing their future. that’s the deeper dimension of what we’retalking about. that the same interest groupsthat have proven again and again in the past,

namely the pharmaceutical investmentbusiness, how ruthless they are, are still around trying to fool us. trying to tell us, “well,believe us.” why should we? if we don’t have the courage to liberateourselves, then we will not make progress amongall diseases. the one disease that the status quo, meaningthe pharmaceutical, the investment business, needs most to continueits business, to stabilize, to cement its system... is cancer.

they can afford to allow, let’s say, advancesin osteoporosis that decrease the number of bone fractures without major damage to itsfuture existence. they can allow progress inthis and that disease to mask their principle business. but they cannot allow, they cannotallow cancer to disappear or be identified as a disease that can be regulated orprevented. long ago, they have initiated what dr. niedzwieckimentioned, the fact of fear. in fact, it’smore than that. it’s a psychological warfare on humanitythat the pharmaceutical industry is leading with the tool of cancer.

keeping cancer as a death verdict is the platform,is a precondition, for this entire investment industryto continue. ty: big pharma may need this cancer investmentindustry to continue so that the money keeps flowing in, but our goal with the truthabout cancer is exactly the opposite. wewant to eradicate cancer once and for all. that’s why we’ve shared these truths withyou today. maybe they’ve been a little bit difficultto believe, but they are the truth. has your perspective changed on this? i hope that it has because the perspectivethat

most people have when they hear “cancer”is that cancer is a death sentence and our message is exactly the opposite. cancer is not a death sentence. there’s always hope. pamela kelsey: my name is pamela kelsey. i was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreasin 1975. i was told that i had a year and a half tolive, at the most. if i did chemotherapy, possibly chemotherapy, radiology, the different treatments that conventional medicine has.

ichose not to do that after finding out about the clinic in mexico and i chose to go ontheir regimen. i thought my life was over, but it was toosoon to be over. i was only 34 years old and myhusband and i have started a business called “leading estates of the world.” wetraveled the world. we saw the most beautiful properties all overthe world and i enjoyed the business very much. i wrote and designed for the magazine.

we were in a veryhappy relationship and i just wanted a solution. i was always proactive to try to—if there’sa problem, i’m going to fix it. so a friend of mine—i had this horrible pain, just terrible, terrible pain. i was in bed, off and on, for about ayear with low blood sugar, abdominal pain and then it got worse and worse to the pointwhere i felt like i had a knife through the middle of my chest and out my back. so a friend said, “i know a friend who wascured. she had inoperable cancer of the colonand she went to a clinic in mexico and she’s

five years clear of cancer.” so my husbandand i didn’t waste any time. we came right down to mexico and we had the—we went through the physical. and i was still very nervous about everything,but we talked to patients down here. there must have been 40 patients down herewith similar stories. so i began to gain hope and confidence thatthis was something that would really work. so i took the medicine home, the tonic, andthe supplements. i was very diligent,religiously so, about sticking to the diet,

doing everything the doctors told me. and withina year – well they told me that within three months i would start to feel better – andso it was almost three months to the day that iwas able to start not having so much pain. my migraine headaches were not so frequent,not so intense. and i gradually stopped—igradually, month by month stopped having the pain in my abdomen. i could startdigesting my food and i got better. and within a year i was clear of cancer ofthe pancreas.

it was just so amazing because i knew thatvery few people survive cancer of the pancreas. over the years, of course, since then i don’tknow of anyone that has survived as long as i have. and then, we had another episode in our lifebecause in 2011, i came to the clinic. i hadbeen under a great deal of stress. we had had a lot of situations that were challenging. so i came to the clinic for a physical andi didn’t expect anything bad, but i just wanted to come and have the doctor help me with some of the stresses. i wasn’t reacting very wellto stress. so we went to st. john’s hospital.

they did a ct scan and they detected lesionsin the liver up to 3.9 centimeters. they were hypoechoic, and they said so liverneoplasm cannot be excluded. that meant that – as i was told – thatthe density of the tissue was so dense that that’s what is normally fromcancer. i immediately came down to the clinic thenand had another cat scan and that confirmed that i did have cancer. i had 22 focal lesions on the liver and theyput me on

the treatment. i felt like i had been totally blindsidedbecause i had been free for decades of cancer and here i had this terrible diagnosis. it was so surprising to me becausepancreatic cancer was much more painful. this was very subtle. it was just this fullfeeling in my body and a little bit of pain. they asked me to come back in three months. i couldn’t wait three months. i was wanting to come back sooner and see what was happening.

so i came back in two and ahalf months and all but three of the lesions were gone. it was an unbelievable feeling. it was just so unbelievable that here 50 percent,they said, of my liver had been affected by all the lesionson the liver. so 50 percent of my liver wasbad and had cancer and here i had only three small spots remaining and then the nextphysical shortly after that showed that there was no more cancer. i’m the longest, to my knowledge, the longestliving cancer survivor of the pancreas and

i’m alive and well 40 years later. the doctors have confirmed that there is nolonger any trace of cancer in my body. and i’m just radiant with happiness becausei know that this treatment work and i know that had i donethe conventional treatment i wouldn’t have lived. pamela kelsey: bob and i just owe my lifeto you and to your sister. and yet you’ve carried on. it was her life work, she was totally devoted. she moved from dallas to here and went through—she could have had a totally different life, but she was so committed. ty: here’s a summary of what you’ve cometo understand during this episode.

you’ve seenthe heartbreaking truth behind why cancer is so rapidly spreading. and why the falsecures have been perpetuated. i hope this side of the history equation has helped you understand the foundation of why things arethe way they are. you’ve seen the shocking decisions concerningthe nuremburg trials, where the vilest of crimes were praised, and that evil intentopened a floodgate of deception that led to thecreation of a system that sought not to eradicate disease, but rather amplify it throughdisseminating false solutions for the sake

of perpetual monetary gain. you’ve seen the doctors who, rather thanbeing praised or rewarded for their heroic deeds in healing their patients, have beenpersecuted, slandered, threatened, and, in some cases, have even had their patient recordsdestroyed, their practice shut down, they’ve been imprisoned, even run out ofa country, and have had their families undergo harassment and heartache for their loyaltyto the cause. you’ve seen the children thathave been forced to chemotherapy against their wishes and their parents wishes,regardless of their level of expertise or the effectiveness of their desired natural,proven

protocol. you’ve seen the proof that corruption, greed,coercion, deception, and fear have been tools employed to create a system that leavespeople confused and afraid, rather than empowered. the great news today is that we have won thebattle in your life as you have discovered the truth. and as it’s said, “the truth will setyou free.” i’m so happy thatyou’ve experienced this and that through you, your loved ones too will know the truthabout cancer.

i know you felt the hope and courage in thestories of the survivors that have recovered taking a natural approach, achieving featsunheard of by conventional methods of treatment. isn’t it wonderful to see real life proof? it warms my heart to see lives restored. i hope that you’ve enjoyed learning thesethings. and while they may be difficult to hear,it does bring us to the central truth that cancer, is in fact, not a death sentence. in lightof this truth that we have established, you can give yourself one of the greatest giftsin

this moment and that is the peace that resultswhen you are free from fear. you do nothave to live in fear. you can prevent and beat cancer, 100 percentnaturally. that’s a lot of information that we coveredtonight. i hope you’ve learned a lot fromit. i know that i actually learned a lot travelingand getting this information for you. this information, these truths, that we’ve shared tonight are fundamental in the rest of ourjourney these next eight days. i can’t wait for the next episode, folks.

we’re going to travel all the way down toaustralia and we’re going to learn from a practitionerand a couple of cancer survivors what they have done to treat cancer naturally. we’re going to learn about essential oilsand the role that they play, not only in preventing, but also in treating cancer. we’re going to also discover some interestingknowledge about hormones and the role that they play in diagnosis and prevention andeven treatment of cancer. but the biggie in the next episode is breastcancer. this is breast cancer awareness month andthere are a lot of lies and deceptions that

are associated with treatment and diagnosingbreast cancer. there’s a lot of truths thatare not commonly known. we’re going to discover all of those inthe next episode. i’mreally pumped about it and i hope that you join us there. i thank you for watching tonight’s episodeand i can’t wait to see you for the next one. in the meantime, get some rest and we’ll see you tomorrow. thanks for tuning in tonight. god bless all of you. dr. matthias rath: it's extremely important to state the truth.

to fight for the truth. this is why we appreciate you coming to us and interviewing us at length on this process. because it is a courageous thing that you are doing ty. and not just with us, but with opening up this curtain of deception and lies about cancer and, for that matter, other diseases. and giving the people of america and the world a chance to see through that maze of deception and make their own choice. i think you must be complimented. i'm complimenting you for that. tina baird: thank you to ty and chris and bill henderson. i've watched all of ty's documentary. the whole entire thing. several times.

and i continue to watch some of his excerpts on facebook. he'll bring some of those out every once in a while. doctor gonzalez. a big thank you to each and every one of those doctors who participated because they truly saved my life. and i think dr. buttar definitely is one of those. this documentary-- if i didn't have that i wouldn't think i had another option. and so, it's just a huge thank you. thank you for doing what they're doing.

dr. robert scott bell: i’m most grateful not only for participating in this global quest, but that you all have been able to watch a great man. a tremendous healer who has passed from this plane much too soon. dr. nicholas gonzalez, a good friend, a dearfriend of mine. hislegacy of healing, of empowering you to heal, to bring in that power to heal back whereit belongs with you, will continue long after. but i continue every day that i breathe andspeak and communicate through radio and through this global quest to acknowledge thegreat works of dr. nicholas gonzalez and

what he brought to us all. and a passion and a dedication to really learnand to teach about nutritional ways to prevent and reversecancer, detoxification protocols. and i hopethat he has inspired you as he has inspired me to continue to learn and never stoplearning and never stop helping and never stop working to help others who are genuinelyin need. this is why we do what we do and this is whythe global quest is also greatly honoring and greatly appreciative of all the effortsof dr. nicholas gonzalez. and his works will notperish because of this and because of what

you are doing and watching and supportingthis global quest. thank you, dr. nick. we love you. we appreciate you. charlene bollinger: he supported us from the very beginning and it means so much to have had his support and the world is just missing a great star and, of course, heaven’s gain, our loss. what did you think of this first show in the series? did you learn something new? are you excited to see the next eight episodes? do you think your friends and your family would enjoy watching it as well?

then help us spread the word by sharing this page on facebook and on twitter and on all the other social media sites by clicking the links below. your support will make a huge difference in the number of people that we reach and ultimately in the number of lives that we save. thanks for watching and we'll see you tomorrow.