(This story was first written in 1966 by Tom Valentine of the Santa Maria Calif. Times, following Interviews with the father and son team of biochemists Ernst krebs Sr. and Jr.,who as the John Beard Foundation in San Francisco, challenged cancer dogma for decades, and were vilified for their work)
There is an absolute monopoly when it comes to the approved treatments for cancer in the United States, and also in much of the world.
This monopoly has prevented better, more effective, more scientific and far more humane treatments from being accepted by the cancer establishment and applied for the benefit of the deathly ill.
The truth is, millions have suffered needlessly at the hands of their orthodox physicians. The fascist cancer monopoly is an embodiment of evil.
The reason I choose modern cancer research history to illustrate evil is because the examples are so very clear. To deliberately add to the misery of sick people, (who as commoners have no “standing”) as the institutions have done with surgeries, toxic chemotherapies and irradiation, requires human overseers with a sense of evil beyond the mere self-serving desires lurking within us all.
The history of cancer research illustrates organized institutional evil. The physicians are not evil people individually; they participate for the most part in a self serving ignorance believing the institutional lies.
Cancer is a hideous, insidious, invasive, and corrosive way to have one’s body devoured from the inside out. Cancer became the number one killer disease of modern America in 2005—replacing in statistical ranking heart and artery disease.
Both major diseases, by the way, have the same inherently evil dogmatic monopolistic history. The death and destruction from cancer has progressed in harmony with the amount of money society has managed to spend in making war against it. Cancer research and medicine is proof positive of the adage that if you toss more money and bureaucracy at a problem, you will absolutely get more of the problem.
In my high school years (1949-53) “everybody knew” that cancer was an incurable disease. This was a lie put forth by the cancer institutions that had already become financial behemoths based upon authority-backed emotional propaganda such as “fight cancer with a checkup and a check.” This propaganda gimmick generated a vicious cycle. Getting a checkup by a physician found more cancer among the people, which enlarged cancer statistics, which were used to scare more people into getting checked up. It has never improved the cure rate, but it increased misery by having more people medicated, burned and cut in futility than ever before.
However, by the time I entered high school at the middle of the 20th century there had already been several proved modalities for keeping cancer in check, without writing a check. There were many “alternative therapies” for treating cancer more humanely and sensibly than the cut, burn and poison techniques so dominant in the industry today.
In the final decade of the 1800s, John Beard a Scottish embryologist discovered the basis of what we now call “stem cells” and just before the turn of the century he had elucidated how cancer, in the form of trophoblast cells, which are involved in every pregnancy, served a useful purpose as the chorion envelope surrounding the early fetus.
If the invasive cells of the chorion envelope are not wiped out after the 56th day of pregnancy, both the mother and new fetus will die within about a week of a horrible form of cancer—chorionepithelioma.
Beard learned through animal experiments that the key timing device in switching off this invasive, parasitic envelope, which gives every new embryo its start, was the development of a pancreas gland in the fetus.
Nature’s solution to this deadly cancer that gives life in the earliest stages, is a digestive enzyme produced by the pancreas—trypsin. To make a long story shorter, after years of research and development, Dr. John Beard, professor at Edinburgh University determined just prior to the dawn of the 20th century that this enzyme was capable of devouring and removing cancer cells and tumors. Beard first published his findings in 1902 in the prestigious journal Lancet
Beard was a careful and exacting scientist. Flush with his discoveries about enzymes, which were known to biological scientists at that time but were not attracting any attention outside of digestion, Beard injected extract of trypsin in mice with Jenson’s sarcoma, and the tumors regressed. This was an extraordinary achievement and should have changed the direction of cancer research and medicine at the time.
In fact, other physicians and researchers adopted Beard’s magnificent enzyme discovery, and for the next 20 years they published how successful the enzyme treatments had been on human patients in the top journals,Lancetand British Medical Journal, God-fearing men with good intentions will joyously set out to verify and utilize such a nontoxic, noninvasive treatment for a dread disease. However, the powerful men of the “Crown” running the institutions of Europe and America refused to abandon dogma and viciously attacked Beard and all who spoke well of his work.
Beard fought back valiantly, publishing a monograph in 1911 titled The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer, which presented his case impressively. It is said that the “truth will out.” And, surely it did in this case—but the establishment monopoly obviously did not want the truth.
John Beard died in 1924 a bitter and lonely genius.
The year after John Beard published his monograph (1912) the world suddenly learned about Marie Curie and her discovery of the rays emitted by radium. The establishment, directed by those who control the credit required for the financial development of new ideas, leaped aboard the medical radiation train.
Whereas the media of the day had only ridiculed Beard’s work, it heralded Madame Curie and radiation. It didn’t take long for burning tumors with irradiation to join surgery and dangerous drugs as a popular, but hardly successful, therapy for cancer.
The wonderful non-toxic use of trypsin and other enzymes dropped down Orwell’s memory hole. The deliberateness of the suppression is what makes this evil. The powers of the dogmatic establishment displayed an evil arrogance by dishonestly destroying Beard’s enzyme treatment. This same evil arrogance has destroyed many viable cancer alternatives over the past two centuries.
Now we must pause to analyze a significant change in the history of cancer research and therapy. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, the cut, poison and burn methods for “attacking” cancer rather than treating it, were officially and firmly established by the time John Beard died in 1924.
In the United States the medical monopoly of the union doctors—American Medical Association—had been established with state licensing procedures and medical training schools utterly in their power. At about the same time the Federal Food and Drug Agency (FDA) was formed and transformed.
It was formed as a reasonable idea for protecting consumers, but it was quickly transformed into a monopoly protection agency. One can read all about it in the book written by the first FDA director, Harvey Wiley MD. The book is titled: The History of a Crime; How Could it Happen.
Without exception in my reading of the history of mankind, whenever a good idea becomes “institutionalized” the good idea takes a back seat and the maintenance and promotion of the institution becomes the reason for its existence.
The first rule of institutionalization is to become dogmatic and protect your turf at all costs. No institutions demonstrate this better than the modern medical cabal involving medicine, pharmacy, insurance and government.
What this fascist monopoly has done, regardless of those cases where genuine cures occurred, is kill more people in more miserable ways than any other do-good institution yet invented.
Doing evil in the name of good is the essence of diabolical, a word meaning “of the devil.” I heard a pulpit-pounding preacher of the old school give his version of the devil. It is the best explanation of why everything coming out of man’s institutions can become exactly the opposite of what is good for humanity. In a nutshell, here’s that sermon:
It is clear that the devil wants to be God. It is also clear that he is not God and cannot be God, so how in the hell is he going to fool people into thinking he is God? He uses the mirror trick. When we look into a mirror we see ourselves, exactly as we are, down to the pimples and warts.
And yet, what we see is exactly the opposite of reality. Our left eye is our right eye; left ear, right ear and so forth. Our reflection comes back to us the opposite of reality.
Satan “mirrors” God. Where God uplifts and creates, Satan tears down and destroys. This is why so many things are exactly the opposite of what our minds tell us should be. Cancer research should seek cures and comfort for people in desperate condition, but the institution filters out sane, workable discoveries for no logical scientific reason—as happened with Beard’s use of enzymes—and conversely “they” promote insane, destructive procedures of the cut, burn and poison variety knowing full well they do not work. The directors of this monopoly cannot pretend ignorance of the viable alternatives, which they have deliberately quashed in their support of dogma. And, if they did not act in ignorance, the only explanation for their actions is—evil.
Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez of New York has been carrying the banner for Dr. Beard’s enzyme therapy in recent years and has written fine articles about Beards work a century ago. In a recent article, Dr. Gonzales wrote about the establishment’s destruction of Beards work as follows:
“I have often pondered the vitriolic—and irrational—response of so many eminent researchers and scientists to Beard’s well-documented approach, reactions that nearly buried the treatment for keeps. He was trained impeccably as a scientist and behaved throughout his life as a true researcher, carefully documenting his laboratory and clinical results in the mainstream medical literature. But, it made no difference at all.
“The rejection of enzyme therapy 100 years ago had really nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, psychology and popularity…”
Dr. Gonzalez goes on to rationalize the evil that occurred, and I repeat it here. Note, however, that the writer does not necessarily believe nor see the institutional evil, which is the subject of this paper. His rationale is perhaps “acceptable” to many modern Americans. It is unacceptable to me.
“…Beard was a nerdy ivory tower scientist, who had little patience for his critics whom he saw as unacceptably ignorant. He didn’t court the press, didn’t care about fame, and didn’t seem at all interested in international acclaim. His refusal to play the political game properly, his refusal to court his colleagues and media of the day, I believe worked against him. I also think that his approach was just too simple, perhaps not mysterious enough to enchant his fellow researchers.”
That simply doesn’t wash. Obviously the callers of the shots at the Royal Society (cabalistic and Masonic bunch) and among the institutions of the Crown in England, Europe and the US were not eagerly seeking a simple, clean, elegant solution to cancer, or else they would have leaped into the fray to prove the benefits they were hearing about. It is true that playing the proper politics has a role within institutionalized thinking and doing, but we read how many other researchers verified Dr. Beard’s therapy—were all of them reclusive nerds?
One also wonders where the eager and active journalists were. Surely they, like me, would have been excited to hear about such an elegant therapy. I’m betting some writers did want to ballyhoo the story in spite of Beard’s alleged recalcitrance but they ran into an editor’s spike. Nothing is new under the sun, what happened to me surely happened to others.
As a reporter for Chicago Tribune’s “Today” in 1970, I personally wanted to tell the stories of viable cancer treatment alternatives, but powerful editors killed the idea and steered me away. The one exception took place in 1966 at the small Santa Maria Times in California where I told the story of John Beard’s enzymes and other alternatives in a series on the front pages four days running.
That series, incidentally, caused the American Cancer Society to sponsor a meeting for doctors in Santa Maria, and they called the Times publisher on the carpet for allowing the series. The criticism of the series amounted to nothing of substance, because Beard’s work is substantial. The artfully arrogant criticism was—“Tom Valentine is a sports writer who thinks he’s a doctor.”
Wasn’t that scientific?
The story of John Beard might not make a case for institutional evilall by itself, but there are many such stories—the literature is rich in concrete examples. I will comment only on one more, but there are many books written about how the cancer establishment has unfairly and unscientifically destroyed alternatives that may have profoundly affected their monopoly. “ The Cancer Industry ,” by Dr. Ralph Moss is a good example. “ The Burzynski Breakthrough ” by Thomas Elias is a recent tale of the same old institutionalized evil.
At one time I thought seriously about writing a biography of Dr. William F. Koch, a scientist and physician without peer in the cancer research world of 1919 through the 1950s.
Dr. Koch died in exile because the cancer establishment drove him from is native United States. A detailed account of his cancer work is found in a 1968 book, Cancer Cures Crucified , written by Suzanne Caum. She had been a terminal cancer patient who became one of Koch’s many successful cancer cures. It was self-published because no publisher dared touch it. You may find many references to Dr. Koch’s remarkable work on the Internet.
Dr. Koch’s ability as a biochemist thrust biological thinking decades ahead of his time and the seemingly simple cellular oxidation metabolism therapy, called glyoxylide, he invented was, perhaps, too biochemically advanced for the establishment cranks to understand—yet the facts indicate some of them knew full well he was onto something remarkable.
Morris Fishbein, the infamous director of the AMA for decades, knew the value of Koch’s discovery—he tried to tie it up, but failed and turned viciously against Koch.
The destruction of Koch’s reputation and the ruination of his life in America were far too vitriolic and intentional to be mere objection to alleged quackery. Methinks the establishment complained too much.
When the institutionalized evil destroyed Dr. Koch, they set molecular biology back by at least half a century. Koch was that far ahead of his peers in understanding free radical, oxidation-reduction molecular biochemistry.
In The Cancer Industry, Dr. Moss illustrates how the establishment has managed to destroy innovation over and over again without adequately or fairly investigating it or testing it. The American Cancer Society’s list of “unorthodox treatments” has an impressive lineup of ingenious researchers—who were never eagerly nor hopefully investigated. Ironically, Moss tells of one member of the cancer establishment who admitted to him that new ideas for research in our time springs from the denigrated “quacks” of the past.
Dr. Moss lists 63 “unproven methods of cancer treatment” and shows the amount of research the establishment used to allege that they were unacceptable to the monopoly. Many ingenious physicians and researchers were tossed unceremoniously and viciously onto the quack heap just to keep the monopoly safe.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon focused the vast power of the United States government against cancer by declaring “war” on it. More than four decades later and with more than $30 billion taxpayer dollars spent, after adjusting for longer life span, the incidence of cancer continues to go up. The cancer incidence, for example, rose about 44% between 1950 and 1989. The AMA Journal (pretending to be on the side of truth, honesty, health and public service) published an article in 2004 titled: “Are Increasing Five-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer?” The answer was a resounding “no.”
Cancer has been with mankind from the beginning. The cancer institutions have only been with us less than two centuries. I say it is a death cult operation. That is the only explanation that truly makes sense. I agree that individuals can be quite evil, destructive and vindictive, but the unreasonably suppressive history of the cancer institutions illustrates that a force like the “hidden hand” of Adam Smith’s capitalism manages to arrange individual shortcomings to work together in a concert of evil. There is undoubtedly a powerful cabal controlling all the world’s finances, whose members are devoted to the wretched philosophies one can find under the umbrella of masonry, which by admission is a Luciferian organization.
I say they use their power and influence to maintain this destructive monopoly of medicine that kills in the name of healing and public service—the mirror image!
