MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS

In the early 1900s, the leading causes of death were, in order, pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, and gastrointestinal infections, mostly cholera. Thanks to public health measures and education, these have largely been conquered in the developed world.

Even deaths in accidents have been cut by half, per capita, over the past 100 years. We live longer and healthier lives than ever before.

That is of course, until you get cancer.

The inevitability of cancer has made itself painfully clear over the past century. As mortality from almost all other causes has plummeted, cancer rates have skyrocketed.

While there is good reason to believe that some aspects of modern lifestyle and diet also contribute, the bulk of the rise in cancer appears to be happening because we are no longer dying from so many other things.

For all the bracelets, clothing, social media campaigns, walks, and races dedicated to finding a cure for the world’s second leading cause of death, cancer is still a hallmark disease of modern society. A disease that for all intents and purposes is just as untreatable today as it was 40 years ago − at least from a conventional perspective.

Cancer stalks us – it is the disease that is hidden inside and then my some accident, or by some blip in mammogram or CT scan we are given the news of a tumor or multiple Myeloma.

It is said that cancer is the product of our incredible evolutionary advances. This is what makes it an inevitable part of growing older in some people. The truth is that now a cancer diagnosis is not always an immediate death sentence, but because of western medicine we see that lives are saved, however, complications and the quality of life afterwards is not an easy thing to live with.

Time heals — the body can heal itself and anymore it is the Pharmaceutical interference that brings down the quality of life and creates physical and financial complications that puts a strain on people.

This is when people die.

It is in the aftermath of the financial burden; the stress of not having enough insurance, and not enough futile care intervention that leaves people at death’s door.

Since around 1990, some two decades after Richard Nixon first declared the “war on cancer” in the US, we have finally begun to make progress on reducing the mortality of cancer. Some of that progress has come from a few technological innovations such as rational drug design, but most has come through enhanced modes of early detection.

Catching cancer before it becomes a malignancy spread throughout the body is the only hope for a cure. Aggressive combinations of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy can often completely eliminate cancerous cells that haven’t yet accumulated too many mutations.

Chemotherapy is western medicine’s holy grail of cancer treatment. However, it is actually a product of World War II chemical weapons programs.

It emerged as an afterthought in the wake of many decades worth of failed cancer treatments using radiation and surgery. Eventually it became an adjunct to these protocols − a typified example of the “better living through chemistry” philosophy that swept the nation during the 1950s.

By pumping patients full of toxic chemicals, it was believed, cancer tumors wouldn’t stand a chance at survival. And for some types of cancer, it appeared as though this hypothesis was correct − at least to an extent, and in the short-term. Chemotherapy does, in fact, kill cancer cells. But it also kills healthy cells, along with a patient’s immune system and, really, anything else that crosses its path.

Truth be told, chemotherapy is the definition of a genotoxic treatment protocol, meaning it damages human DNA. And damaged DNA is a leading cause of cancer, as per the “mutational theory” of cancer that is widely accepted among scientists as the impetus behind cancer’s emergence and spread.

What this means is that when chemotherapy is introduced into a person’s body, it causes mutational changes to occur at the cellular level that actually promote the growth and spread of malignant cancer cells. Unlike the various selectively cytotoxic anti-cancer compounds found naturally in certain herbs and plants, non-selectively cytotoxic chemotherapy chemicals destroy both good and bad cells leaving aggressive cancer cells behind and leaving patients prone to more cancer.

The fact that many of the most popular chemotherapeutic drugs currently on the market are classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as human carcinogens illustrates the backwards nature of conventional cancer treatment. Tamoxifen, for instance, one of the leading chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, not only causes more cancer (along with more than 24 other deadly side effects), it is also often ineffective.

The same is true for radiation treatments, which are increasingly being shown to trigger secondary cancers in patients within years after administration. Let’s use breast cancer as an example. Women who opt for radiotherapy often end up developing more serious cancers like cancer of the lungs later on down the road. This is due to the fact that irradiating breast tissue induces cancer-causing DNA damage at the cellular level.

The idea of simply blasting an area of tissue with radiation in the hopes of eradicating all malignant cells and curing cancer is exceptionally short-sighted. Cancer cells are smarter than both radiation and chemotherapy.

They tend to find other ways of surviving and growing stronger when targeted with poisonous therapies that destroy the body’s own natural line of defense against cancer − the immune system.

This is why we rarely hear about patients actually being cured from cancer when opting for chemotherapy and radiation. At best, these treatments might help extend a person’s lifespan by a few weeks, months, and sometimes years; albeit, with serious side effects and greatly reduced quality of life. At worst, such treatments kill patients more quickly than if they had chosen not to undergo them at all.

So the obvious conclusion is that it is far better and lucrative to treat cancer rather than preventing it or curing it.

For those of us who have had it or are going through the treatments it can be seen as a ruthless and unforgiving cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry.

We are told that cancer treatment methods accepted and endorsed by the federal power structure are the ones that will only help – but they are simply iatrogenic artifacts that need to be challenged in order to cure what is now being shown to be an inevitable part of the evolutionary process.

As many as 90% of all cancer-related deaths have nothing whatsoever to do with cancer.

Cancer-related deaths are a product of cancer treatments killing patients over time through the destruction of immunity and a failed “management” system that gives patients a false hope of survival, all while enriching the drug industry.

There’s no money to be made in prescribing prevention advice like eating fewer chemicals and exercising more. The “bread and butter” of the cancer industry is unleashing the next, latest-and-greatest cancer drug. Not telling you how to avoid cancer in the first place.

There is no money in giving patients hope – in fact a lot of what is recommended by doctors and the western medicine – is done under duress. Next to the Morticians in the funeral business there really isn’t anything like the pressures you get from doctors to capitalize on the emotional upheaval a cancer diagnosis brings.

According to a CNBC report, Goldman Sachs analysts recently attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, and that is the new “cures” for diseases like cancer that could be had through natural means and genetic operations.

GoldmanSachsIsCuringPatientsASustainableBusinessModel.CBSNews.YouTube.2018

A Goldman analyst actually stated that cures are bad for business in the long run.

The cold and immoral analysis was made in an April 10th 2018, publication of “The Genome Revolution.”

Analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients:

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies.”.”While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”

Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.

“GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines… Where an incident pool remains stable like, in cancer cases the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”

Yes, a Goldman analyst has said outright that curing people will hurt their cash flow. And he said that in a note designed to steer clients away from investing in cures.

In the past, this type of evil would not be openly spoken about. In the past, it was a conspiracy theory the bankers secretly believed – now, they openly say it.

It can be confirmed by the words of this Goldman Sachs analyst that the elite technocrats don’t want to cure diseases because that will be bad for business.

It can be said that officially they want people to suffer for as long as possible. Every suffering human enriches make them money.

The question is if you have cancer or if you are preparing for the day that you will be diagnosed – just realize that traditional methods of keeping Cancer at bay are there to fill someone’s wallet.

We are beginning to see more and more how disgusting a profit-above-all-else economy really is. This is the equivalent of the banker taking a baseball bat and beating you senses, and then throwing you band aids hoping that this alone will stop the bleeding.

Nothing can stop these abusers of life – only dialogue, awareness, and activism beyond the ribbon, pink dress or bracelet. You can’t get the government to step in.

Drug companies and big pharma no longer worry over government interference, because they own the government. They also fill the pockets of the mainstream media.

This is why you won’t hear about this on the nightly cable news.

My wife, Janine, who is now facing cancer issues of her own is really not a new kid on the cancer block —she has self-healed in natural ways using eastern medicine, natural supplements and the holistic route.

She has been currently reading many books on the subject and acknowledges that for centuries Chinese medicine has cured cancer for the Chinese — why is it only used in China?

She recently related to me in an email some comments about a book she was reading about cancer cures, both Western and Eastern.

She wrote:

“In reading through a Medifocus Guidebook, I stopped reading on page 38 Care vs Cure, the role of complementary and alternative therapies in Cancer definitely something is missing. There are mentions of “product” falling outside the realm of conventional or standard medical care. What is falling outside of “the realm “if it’s not conventional, it’s out of control.

What?

And, why the generalization of Alternative Medicine, such as Traditional Chinese medicine notably in China, only in China, or Ayurvedic medicine IN INDIA that is recognized, accepted and utilized by those countries.

Lower down the curtain, set the stage, no time for private consultation here in Western Societies, we the sheeples of the United States are told there isn’t a magic bullet to cure cancer as there is a lack of sufficient scientific evidence to support the conclusion that any specific type of complementary and alternative methods can cure cancer. Despite my best attempt to find truths by being an informed consumer in methods in cures, methods of curative procedures, I am faced by an emerging reality that cancer is called a practice. Who wants anyone practicing cancer, time to practice the piano honey…

Then fear is brought into the equation of discovery by the authors of the intelligent patient overview, “patients who fail.” I feel sick. Talk about rock bottom moral. Patients who fail. Our destiny seems to rely on our extinction our own fear, going nowhere.

It’s a mad world.”

I called her and asked her to bring her thoughts to my show because of her passion and her will to beat the cancer she has now been diagnosed with.

The fight is no longer against the cancer itself – the fight is also for moral values and the demand for alternative methods of healing.

With cancer, it is always game of dice. With good genes and a healthy lifestyle, we can beat the odds for a while, but the house always wins eventually.

That is of course if we let the house win – the best thing is to tear the house down and reveal it to be immoral and ineffective.

Written by Ron Patton