To Whom It May Concern:
This past weekend a fund raising letter from American Institute of Cancer Research was brought to my attention by a concerned past supporter of yours.
Well, maybe ‘concerned’ is not the right word – he was laughing. Past is definitely the right word, though, as he won’t be sending any more funds your way.
At the top of the letter was your ‘Recommendation for Cancer Prevention’ – a ‘To Do’ list of 8 numbered items. These were somewhat common sense suggestions except for the last one.
The item numbered ‘8’ was a NOT ‘To Do’ on the ‘To Do’ list.
“8. Don’t use supplements to protect against cancer.”
Now, it is one thing when doctors say supplements won’t help. That evidences that they are w-a-a-a-y behind in the research of selenium against cancer. However, to note NOT to use supplements as part of a cancer prevention protocol is to infer and imply if not outright put forth that all supplements likely contribute to cancer incidence. That is at best retarded and at worst idiotic -- or perhaps criminal.
I asked the addressee if I could make a copy of the letter but he said, “Just keep it. I’m not sending them any more money.”
You see, this man’s wife was diagnosed with late stage ovarian cancer in 2006 – stage 3B (virtually terminal). [See letter attached.] The doctor was so discouraged after exploratory surgery that he gave her a very dour offering of “Well, we’ll at least give you the option to take chemo therapy.”
This woman asked about taking the mineral supplement selenium but this doctor told her supplements were a waste of time. Another oncologist later told her the same thing with greater fervency and also adding that dietary changes were equally worthless.
Well, this lady knew something of my extensive research on the use of selenium in a 100 per cent, whole food grown form with cancer (and a number of other areas as well).
The lady commenced with 800 micrograms daily of 100 per cent whole food selenium (and hearty amounts of 100 per cent whole food forms of GTF chromium and silicon as well as following a specialized dietary).
Her improvement was rapid and dramatic.
Doctors had recommended 6 chemotherapy treatments at 3-week intervals to be followed by a break and then repeating the initial treatment again. Doctors noted that they would then perform a second surgery to remove the omentum which was not previously removable due to extensive scarring and wide spread cancer.
Well, after the first round of chemotherapy and CA-125s dropping to normal doctors decided to do surgery before another round of chemotherapy. Omentum and scar tissue was removed. Pathology was all clear. Doctors scrapped the second round of chemotherapy. At the one year mark of her initial diagnosis the medical doctor declared her cured. The woman has a background in the medical field so she was very surprised that he would use the word ‘cured’ with cancer and especially after only one year.
That cured declaration of cancer with extensive supplementation was going on 3 years ago.
Perhaps you’d rather ascribe success to the anointing with oil and laying on of hands with the prayer of faith from a preacher man? Somehow I doubt you’d be more comfortable with the power of a praying preacher.
Maybe you’d rather credit The Almighty with this healing? That would likely be even less appealing to you than power from a praying preacher.
So get up to date on selenium and selenium supplementation. Selenium was first documented for successful cancer treatment in 1911. It has been documented for treatment and/or prevention of cancer through every decade since then in medical journals (British Medical Journal, Cancer Research, JAMA, etc.).
Of course, the best – and most consistent – results are far and away with 100 per cent, whole food grown forms of selenium rather than selenium compounds phormed after a pharmaceutical phashion.
The highest rate of cancer prevention in a clinical, double-blind study was with a 100 per cent, whole food grown form of selenium. No drug or medical procedure has ever documented results anywhere near as close. Neither has a vitamin, mineral, amino acid or any other nutrient compound or derivative shown such dramatic results as selenium in any study on any individuals anywhere EVER.
Please don’t bring up that pathetic and phraudulent SELECT study. That study used a pharmaceutical phorm of selenium noted to be the weakest in antioxidant (read “anti-cancerous”) activity. They used it in only half the amount of selenium studies that demonstrated success. They also mixed its usage with substances demonstrated in the past to reduce antioxidant activity of selenium.
By the way, I was on my way to another couple when I dropped in on your past supporter, and shared your letter with them. The woman’s husband laughed just as the last husband who gave me the letter. The wife didn’t laugh, though. She bolted up in her recliner and said, “I’d be dead without these supplements.”
This lady was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer some years ago. She did not follow the oncologist’s recommendations for surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation. She chose a very similar nutritional protocol (though a bit more aggressive) to that of the previous lady.
Less than one year later after a PETscan her oncologist noted she was clear.
Just last month she had a follow-up PETscan. This time she sought out a local oncologist rather than the out-of-state university oncological specialist.
The local doc only did the PETscan after informing her and her husband that he had 35 years of experience as an oncologist, and that no supplement or dietary changes have any effect on cancer. They said they then had to sit through a 30 minute lecture in which they were chided for their foolishness and were assured that the cancer had most certainly metastasized.
It seems the doctor did the PETscan just to prove a point. Perhaps the $5,000 dollar fee also entered in to his agreement to do the procedure.
One week later at the follow-up the doctor had quite a different disposition. He noted that no matter how much he examined the PETscan that it was clear.
The local oncologist proved a different point than that which he had promoted with his previous expectation.
Oh, and this lady also now no longer needs her thyroid medication she had taken for more than 20 years. Selenium is of much more importance to thyroid health than iodine. She is off her diabetic medication as her blood sugars are now normal. Her high cholesterol is now a thing of the past. In short, this senior citizen is in the peak of health!
There are others of which I have personal knowledge related to cancer and selenium as well as other 100 per cent whole food nutrients (in addition to the vast research I have done). I could go on and on – and guess I have to some extent.
Oh, and I also read that tiny, little, fine print on the back of your letter. That’s an eye-opener both literally and figuratively.
So the American Institute FOR CANCER RESEARCH spent less money in its last fiscal year “directly in support of cancer research” (to quote your fine print) than for anything else on which you spent funds – barely more than 10 per cent of your spending.
More money was spent on administrative costs than on cancer research.
Twice as much was spent on fundraising costs than on cancer research.
Five times as much (more than half of all spending totaling almost $20 million dollars) was spent on public education than on cancer research – except in your case that would be for public miseducation i.e. misinformation and disinformation.
Your spending habits are not consistent with your organization’s titled name of “For Cancer Research”. The name is at least misleading if not entirely inaccurate. Isn’t there some kind of truth in labeling or truth in advertising violation in there somewhere?
How about “American Institute for Cancer Misinformation”? Or “American Institute for Cancer Perpetuation”?
Also noticed that your headquarters is in Washington, D.C. (District of Criminals).
That seems fitting.
Chris Barr, NAD (Not-A-Doc)
‘Not-A-Doc’ … the name IS my disclaimer