Transcript:

I speak a lot about, so-called alternative therapies such as nutritional therapy. But in this video let's shed some light on the so-called conventional therapies, which pharma shills promote as successful. For this, I've decided to go right to the source and quote one of the National Cancer Institute's own Hardin B. Jones, who conducted a massive survey of conventional cancers treatment in the 1950s and 1960s.

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery other than when used in immediate life threatening situations".

And that's from 1956 Transactions of the New York Academy of Medical Sciences Volume 6, so you know. There's also a 50 page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Quoting Jones again in regard to surgery.

"No relationship between intensity of surgical treatment and duration of survival has been found in verified malignancies. On the contrary, simple excision of cancers has produced essentially the same survival as radical excision and dissection of the lymphatic drainage. That data, of course, is related to surgery of the breast"

And that's from Hardin B Jones PhD. "A report on cancer" paper delivered to the American Cancer Society's Fifth Annual Science Writers Conference in New Orleans on March 7th, 1969. There's another important factor that Jones clarifies, which gets into specifically how these studies are conducted and sheds some light on the deception that all these original studies are hiding.

"Although there is a dearth of untreated cases for statistical comparison with the treated, it is surprising that the death risk of the two groups remain so similar in the comparisons, it has been assumed that the treated and untreated cases are independent of each other. In fact, that assumption is incorrect. Initially, all cases are untreated. With the passage of time, some receive treatment and the likelihood of treatment increases with the length of time since the origin of the disease.

"Thus, those cases in which the neoplastic process progresses slowly and thus automatically favors the long-term survival are 'treated cases', treated for the same reason. However, those individuals are likely to enjoy longer survival, whether treated or not. Life tables truly representative of untreated cancer patients must be adjusted for the fact that the in the inherently longer lived cases are more likely to be transferred to the 'treated' category than remain in the untreated until death category. The apparent life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer after such adjustment in the table seems to be greater than that of the treated cases".

Jones goes on to state:

"The evidence for greater survival of comparison with untreated is biased by the method of defining the group. All reported studies pick up cases at the time of origin of the disease and follow them to death or end of study interval. If persons in the untreated or central group die at any time in the study interval, they are reported as deaths in the control group. In the treated group, however, deaths which occur before completion of the treatment are rejected from the data. Since these patients do not then meet the criteria established by the definition of the term 'treated'. the longer it takes for completion of the treatment as in multiple step therapy, for example, the worse the error. With this effect stripped out, the common malignancies show a remarkable similar rate of demise, whether treated or untreated."

And as Professor Hardin Jones revealed:

"Beginning in 1940 through redefinition of terms, various questionable grades of malignancy were classed as cancer. After that date, the proportion of cancer cures having normal life expectancy increased rapidly corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnoses included."

And this included things like skin cancer. So there are specific examples of of certain skin cancers that were not previously considered cancer in these databases. In previous videos years back, I've discussed the problem with the push for early diagnoses and that it doesn't truly lead to better results. The problem relates to overtreatment and when treatment is incredibly toxic, you can see why this could lead to a worse outcome.

During the covid hoax, we saw the same dynamic playing out. You know, there was a fake diagnostic test, which was not diagnostic at all and changing the cycle threshold of the test (The inventor of which said the this test should not be used as a diagnostic) ended up changing the percentage of false positives and false negatives.

During covid, this was coupled with a horribly toxic protocol. This started with giving the failed Remdesivir drug to healthy people who simply had a positive Covid test (covid scam test). Upon arriving at a hospital Remdesivir, which is of course now well known to promote rapid renal failure, the next step of the protocol was typically a ventilator and 90% of patients don't survive this. So did early diagnosis work during Covid? I think not, but I'll let you make your own decision on that.

The American Cancer Society has promoted the concept of early diagnosis and treatment throughout the decades, but a lot of us believe that this is simply used as a way of skewing their five-year survival statistics.

Their well-funded promotion of these concepts stimulates much revenue. But here's what Hardin B. Jones had to say about it.

"In the matter of duration of malignant tumors before treatment, no studies have established the much talked about relationship between early detection and favorable survival after treatment. Serious attempts to relate prompt treatment with chance of cure have been unsuccessful. In some types of cancer, the opposite of the expected association of short duration of symptoms with a high chance of being 'cured', has been observed. A long duration of symptoms before treatment in a few cancers of the breast and cervix is associated with longer than usual survival. Neither the timing nor the extent of treatment of the true malignancies has appreciably altered the average course of the disease. The possibility exists that treatment makes the average situation worse".

To round this out, I'll finish up with a 1972 quote from Dr. John Richardson, one of the most successful and pioneering doctors of the B17 nutritional and enzyme metabolic approach:

"Radiation and or radiomimetic poisons (chemotherapy) will reduce palpable growth or measurable tumor infection. Often this reduction may amount to 75% or more of the mass of the growth. These agents have a selective effect, radiation and poisons. They selectively kill everything except the definitively neoplastic cancer cells.

"For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under radiation like snow in the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such tumor, these will remain. The size of the tumor, may thus be decreased by 90%, while the relative concentration of definitively neoplastic cells is thereby increased by 90%. As all experienced clinicians know, or at least should know after radiation or poisons have reduced the gross tumor faction of the lesion, the patient's general wellbeing does not substantially improve. To the contrary, there is often an explosive or culminating increase in the biological malignancy of the lesion. This is marked by the appearance of diffused metastases and rapid deterioration in general vitality followed shortly by death".

Most of these quotes are from this book, world Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin. If you haven't noticed yet, this is one of my favorite books. So you can check it out if you want to dig, into it more. If you got some benefit from this video, go ahead and give me a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel here on Rumble and other platforms that might allow me to post this and that and hit that notification bell so that you can see when I post new videos or go live, which I will be doing in the near future.

And if you haven't grabbed my free reports at https://www.forbiddentreatment.com , this is part one here, go check out ForbiddenTreatment.com I've published so far, five reports. Yeah, more are coming. So check it out and get all of the references there and learn all about the history of these nutritional and enzyme approaches to metabolic health. So thank you so much for watching and I look forward to seeing you next time. Also, if you've found this video to be helpful in your quest for health, then go ahead and support me at my store at HealthHarmonic.com. Have lots of different products on there, including the various B17 products and apricot seeds, but also many other frequency instruments and all kinds of cool stuff. So check it out at https://www.healthharmonic.com and I'll see you over there.

Visit: https://www.healthharmonic.com and https://www.forbiddentreatment.com