Lately I've been reading a couple of books which suggest that the cure for cancer is known ... and has been known for decades. It's caused, it is said, by a cancer microbe discovered decades ago ... and which can be killed. However, those that have worked in this area (Rife, Reich, Cantwell, etc.) seem to have had their work ignored and/or destroyed by (would-you-believe) the American medical community, the National Institute of Health, various Cancer Institutes - all of whom receive billions of dollars to support their research.

Then there's AIDS which (it is said) is most likely the result of an experiment to test a new immune-destroying virus, first tested by the World Health Organization in the late 1970s ... in Africa (on heterosexual blacks). Then in Manhattan (on white, homosexual males).

If you're a conspiracy addict (and are fascinated by coverups), here are a few interesting links:

1. the Cancer Conspiracy
2. Blood: the River of Life
3. Cancer Cure: coverup
4. Cancer Cure: coverup
5. Aids: mass murder?

>Isn't this a tutorial ... besides, how come you're interested in this stuff?
My wife drives a host of local horse-and-buggy Mennonites to the doctor - they all seem to suffer from something.
(Though we're not Mennonites, we live in a Mennonite community where a traffic jam is two buggies in a row.)

Many Mennonites go to a so-called quack who treats them with electronic homeopathy (and other "alternative" medical treatments).
The Mennonite Church is irate and threatens to excommunicate them if they continue to visit the quack.
However, the Mennonites swear that they feel much better after being treated.
One fellow (who treats his own wife with a device originally designed by Rife) has been excommunicated.
    He lent me two books, one by Cantwell ... and that got me started  

>So, do you believe that there's a coverup?
I'll let you know, but how about a theory which says that cancer microbes exist in every cell in every living thing and don't come from outside the body as has been the accepted theory since Pasteur (who may have stolen many of his ideas from Bechamp) ... and it's the environment of these cells that stimulate these microbes, and that environment can be radiation, chemicals, certain foods and habits and that these cancer microbes can change size and shape, sometimes rod-like, sometimes spirals, sometimes spheroidal, sometimes it's a bacterium, sometimes it's a virus, sometimes it's fungal-like, sometimes ...

>So, do you believe this stuff?
Like I said, I'll let you know ...

>I can't think of any logical reason for a coverup ... can you?
How about money? Besides, who said it has to be "logical"?

Remember Laetrile, in the 1970s? Many physicians were touting it as a cancer cure. Thousands of people were using it, claiming it helped. Then the powers that be: the American Medical Association, National Cancer Institutes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, etc. got into the act, saying there was no evidence that it cured cancer and banned its use. Nevertheless ...

>Is it poison? It's made of fruit pits, like apricots. Used incorrectly it can release cyanide. >That sounds bad to me. I said: if used incorrectly. Besides, there's even a the Little Cyanide Cookbook       There's cyanide in lentils, blackberries, raspberries, buckwheat, lima beans, peas, almonds ...

If used incorrectly, the "old" treatments of chemotherapy and radiation therapy can kill you.
Anyway, see what you can find on the Net about Laetrile & McQueen.

>Huh?
Steve McQueen, the movie actor, after realizing that the "old" treatments wouldn't work, went to Mexico to try Laetrile. (It was banned in the U.S., remember?) His tumours were decreasing in size. McQueen even went on TV, claiming that the treatment was working! Then, when he was about to return to the U.S., he decided to have an ugly benign tumour removed. He died as a result of that operation, not cancer. Yet, when you read the stuff about Laetrile you'll find that those who oppose its use just say: "McQueen took Laetrile ... and died shortly after."

Then look for stuff on hydrazine sulfate, as a cancer treatment.
If you're against its use, you can call it "an industrial chemical used in metal refining and rust-prevention products" and, if you wanted to "prove" that it was ineffective, you'd give it to a bunch of patients along with some medication that blocked its effect.

Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute and chief developer of hydrazine sulfate as a cancer therapy, had complained that the N.C.I. allowed patients in its tests of the drug to break protocol and use tranquilizers and other incompatible substances, effectively canceling out the beneficial effects of the drug, killing some patients and causing others to become much sicker.

There are some who claim to be helped. Can the medical community ignore them?

According to this report, about 25% of the U.S. population smokes. For every 1000 deaths, 0.90 are due to cigarette-related lung cancer. In China, over 53% of males smoke. The lung cancer death rate is about 0.52 per 1000 deaths. What does that say to you? >Uh ... move to China if you want to smoke? Perhaps it has more to do with how cigarette tobacco is processed, not how much is smoked. Did you know that there can be up to several hundred ingredients added to tobacco. Upon burning, these can generate several thousand chemicals! (See Ingredients and Additives.) For example, the largest additive is sugar : When burned, sugar produces acetaldehyde, a chemical that interacts with the brain's neurotransmitters. Once the ability of acetaldehyde to increase the nicotine addiction was discovered, the sugar levels in cigarettes rose dramatically as tobacco companies took advantage of the new knowledge to hook younger smokers with good-tasting and highly-addictive cigarettes. >So, are you giving up smoking? Uh ... too late for me, but a pipe is better because there are fewer chemicals and it's more like straight tobacco and American Indians have been smoking straight tobacco for thousands of years without problems and ... >Garbage!

>Okay, but what about the quacks? Don't you think that some are these guys really ARE quacks?
Of course, but some have pretty appealing credentials. (See this list of those that question current theories on AIDS.)
And, concerning a "coverup":
On May 11, 1987, the prestigious London Times carried a headline

The article was carried by a number of newspapers in the world ...but never in the U.S.
Isn't that curious?

>If that's true, are you suggesting that it was done on purpose?
No, but here it suggests that there is a "man-made, vaccine-induced origin of AIDS" and "HIV and its progenitors more likely evolved from simian (i.e. monkey) viruses altered by the deliberate or inadvertent insertion of cancer-causing viral particles from other animal species. We hypothesize these man-made mutants crossed over to infect the human population via contaminated vaccine experiments and vaccine programs.".

>"Deliberate"? Hardly, but it may have been an accident, eh?
Maybe, but it says here that
"At a House Appropriations hearing in 1969, the Defense Department's Biological Warfare division requested funds to develop, through gene splicing, a new disease that would resist and break down a victim's immune system."

>I don't believe any of this. Anyway, what about those quack machines that can cure with electronic impulses and ...?
Yes, I read about them. However, tests on these gadgets often involve bringing the device to a lab and taking measurements ( See this and this).

However, suppose that, for many illnesses (though perhaps not for cancer!) your body is capable of easing the pain and/or curtailing the symptoms all by itself ... if properly stimulated. If this were the case, then laboratory investigations of these quack devices wouldn't reveal anything, would they? A proper investigation would have to involve human beings, not measuring instruments.

>And has this been done?
Yes, as far as I know there have been some such investigations, but then I know of some people who claim to have their illnesses under control by virtue of weekly visits to a homeopath.

>Maybe it's all in their head!
Yes, but my concern is that strange therapies and/or unusual theories or those that go against established theory are too often ignored or, indeed, buried by those that fear a loss of prestige or government grants or ...

>Example?
Becker, twice nominated for the Nobel prize, has made such claims and ...

>Maybe the medical establishment is right. Maybe they ...
But remember Alexander Fleming? After he discovered that a certain mold killed bacteria and reported his findings in 1929, his work was ignored for over a decade. Why? A resistance to new ideas?

>But he did get the Nobel prize, eh? And remember that it's Sir Alexander Fleming, eh?
Eventually (after WWII where the use of penicillin was widely used) Fleming received the Nobel prize in 1945 along with Sir Howard Florey.
(Florey recalls that the Surgeon-General of the U.S. Army instructed army personnel that
"under no circumstances should this new stuff called penicillin be used in the treatment of any United States' military casualties."

>That sounds like laudable caution to me.

Okay, but consider a more current example, that of John W. Gofman who makes the claim that:
"Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States".

>So, is anyone listening?
I don't think so. Apparently he sent his research to 61 medical journals all of whom ignored him. (See this and this.)

>But with all the quacks saying they have the cure for this or that, how can ...?
Yes ... perhaps impressive credentails and publications in peer-reviewed journals isn't enough. Perhaps getting research grants depends upon doing "acceptable" research. Perhaps ...

>Why don't you give this up and get back to something less controversial?
Financial stuff?

>Yes!
I'll think about it, but in the meantime I'm reading a book with an intriguing title: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?.

>And you're thinking intentional?
I'll let you know, but this book, by Horowitz, is the most frightening thing I've ever read!

>Is Horowitz imagining things? Is he a conspiracy addict? Is he ...?
The book has maybe 600 references / notes that refer to government reports, research papers, correspondence between people in the business of genetic engineering, visits to research labs, other books on biowarfare, conference presentations, personal communications with other researchers ...

>Okay, I'll read the book myself.
Good for you and, while you're at it, take a look at:

1. Origin of Aids
2. more on Aids
3. SARS Scam
4. more on SARS
5. Anthrax
6. Horowitz Chat Line