Antioxidants prevent and can reverse cancer, but a patient cured is a customer lost

BY MICHAEL THOMAS

Why have 75 years of evidence that antioxidants can reverse cancer been ignored by both Big Pharma and the media? Let’s find out.

As far back as 2008, researchers at the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center found that taking more vitamin E substantially reduces lung cancer. Their study shows that people consuming the highest amounts of vitamin E had the greatest benefit. When they compared persons taking the most vitamin E with those taking the least, there was a 61% reduction in lung cancer risk.

Let’s go back some more as early as 1976; physicians in Scotland showed that intravenous vitamin C improved the quality and length of life in terminal cancer patients.

Even though lung cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer on earth and kills nearly 1.2 million per year, one would think that when there is promising news in this department it would be reported in a big way by mainstream media, however, this is simply not the case. Vitamin sales are not as profitable to Big Pharma as hard drugs like those found in vaccines, and the major financial support for the media (and medical journals) is pharmaceutical advertising, there is not much of a surprise here.

Dr. Andrew Saul Ph.D. said this of antioxidants and the treatment of cancer, “When we look at high doses of vitamin C given intravenously as a chemotherapeutic agent, we have wonderful uplifting news for every cancer patient in the world, and it easy, safe and inexpensive to have a physician give an IV, you just have to insist on it.”

I believe in the next 10 years this will become more accepted, but people with cancer can’t afford to wait, and the ones that are already gone have been grossly mistreated by the medical profession, and by the government that is supposed to encourage free research and development of all possibilities.”

Dr. Saul said this over a decade ago yet look at where the medical profession has gone. Saul went on to say, “Instead of treating cancer with chemotherapy, you can give intravenous vitamin C in 30, 60, or 100,000 milligrams a day, directly into the bloodstream, and that will kill cancer cells. Vitamin C at that high dose is selectively toxic to cancer cells, and that is exactly what chemo is, except for getting nauseous, losing your hair, all you do is get better.”   

This evidence and more have been dismissed by several medical fraternities like ACS and Cancer UK as false, and for decades the three advocated cancer treatments have been cut, zap, and drug: surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The use of high doses of vitamins has been thoroughly excluded. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people have died from cancer that could have been helped, or even saved by using some of the treatments mentioned by folks like Dr. Saul.

While looking into the effects of antioxidants on cancers I came across this quote from Medical News Today. “For lung cancer patients, taking vitamin E may cause the same increases in cancer’s ability to spread as the NRF2 and KEAP1 mutations that our team has linked to shorter survival.” (Thales Papagiannakopoulos, Ph.D.)

Could this kind of suggestion be made to discourage patients from trying anything but the state-sanctioned drugs?

Big Pharma’s mentality toward patients has never changed, if that were the case, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin would be easily available today.

The next time the government or Big Pharma’s media mouthpiece starts bashing a remedy, patients might want to take a second look. I am just wondering, could the logo be “A patient cured is a customer lost?”