Cancer for profit. Part two

by Tom Valentine

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?

End Part two

Tom Valentine

Tom Valentine (born August 20, 1935, same day as Ron Paul) is a businessman, writer, commentator and radio host with an anti-establishment perspective. He worked with Radio Free America from 1988 to 2004. He tends to align with issues from left and right ends of the political spectrum, as well as libertarianism. His main journalistic interests have been unorthodox health care methods and conspiracy theories. He is a believer in many alternatives as cancer cures, and believes that soy products are unhealthy for human consumption. All of his views are at odds with the mainstream medical community.