Health Care, Part 3: Who Suppresses Good Cures for Cancer?

Nick Gonzalez, first a journalist, then a physician, tells of the NIH tricks

by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate

Part 1 of this series at GumshoeNews.com recommended that we look at the American health care situation without trying to analyze proposed Congressional legislation at the same time. There’s no point taking sides on who should pay for what until we understand where health is headed in this nation.

Part 1 noted that the Rockefellers, or their bosses, have engineered much change in the style of medical practice in the US since 1913 or so. One startling thing Dr Richard Day said, in a 1969 speech, was that a cure for cancer already exists.  He claimed “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released.”

Well, fancy that, and no doctor in the audience threw rocks at him!  

Which Cure Is Dr Day Hiding?

I am not a physician, but I was able to locate 18 cures for cancer, the majority of them in pre-1950 literature. I reported them in my book Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status (published by Trine Day Press, 2013). You can find my wrap-up article at Gumshoe entitled “How To Deal with the Many Advertised Cancer Cures” — which also appeared in a Townsend Letter to Patients and Doctors.

Of my 18 curers, four are still living: Stan Burzynski, Gaston Naessens, Evangelos Michelakos, and Ryke Hamer. The other 14 are:  Virginia Livingston, Royal Rife, Robert O Becker, Georges Lakhovsky, George Crile, Robert Olney, John Ott, John Beard, Johanna Budwig, William Coley, Max Gerson, Thomas Glover, Robert Lincoln, and Emanuel Revici.

The theme of my book is that each of the scientists, who deserved the praise of the world, got ridicule instead. Typically, their work, submitted to a medical journal, was rejected. Note: when an editor of the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine receives a manuscript whose standards are low, he should discard it. But when he receives one that goes against the current wisdom on an important topic, the normal procedure is to publish it and let peers attack it.

Which cure does Dr Day have locked up at the Rockefeller Institute? I think it could be that of Livingston, Glover, Olney, Budwig, Coley or Lincoln. Each of those was known to The Powers That Be by 1969 when Day boasted of it.

Beard, DSc – Saleeby, MD — Kelley, DMD — Gonzalez, MD

Let’s discuss Nick Gonzalez of New York. He’s not on my list of 18 curers, for the simple reason that Dr John Beard, an anatomist at Edinburgh in the 1890s is one of my 18 and Nick’s cure is basically John’s cure. It involves giving the patient pancreatic enzymes. John Beard said that all of us naturally have pancreatic enzymes that can shut down a cancer – some people may need to be given extra.

As Beard was not in medical practice, he had to show doctors how to do it.  One such doctor was Caleb Saleeby. Already the trouble had started by 1906. In that year Saleeby referred to his published articles supporting the enzyme treatment “which have brought me so much abuse from The Powers That Be in this country” (Scotland). He said:

“If this book, Conquest of Cancer, serves to hasten the end [of such frustration of the patients’ needs], my life will have been worth living, though it should end on the gallows amid universal execration.”

Beard himself had said “there is more than one way to burn a man at the stake.” Good heavens.

William Kelley, a dentist in Texas, learned about the enzyme cure and used it on thousands of people. At one point his house was burned down. “Always a good sign” I like to say. His way of finding patients was through the Christian network.

Later, Nick Gonzalez went to Texas to check on Kelley. He read 1,000 of Kelley’s cases and interviewed 400 of the patients. Then Nick went to medical school and became a doctor who used that cure for cancer. I first encountered Nick in a podcast in which he opines that the late actor Michael Landon (who gave $38 million to his doctor!) would have done well with the enzyme treatment.

Gonzalez died at home of a sudden heart attack in 2016.  This occurred at a time when several “alternative medicine” persons were being killed. We can’t claim that Nick’s death was murder with the same certainty that we say it of autism doctor Jeff Bradstreet.

In his book What Went Wrong, Gonzalez showed how the NIH made sure that the clinical trial of his enzyme cure did not pass the test. An Amazon book reviewer said this:

[Gonzalez] presents a very fair and revealing account of the roadblocks and setbacks that kept the real story of his clinical success with this therapy in NOT being accurately setup, monitored, and reported. Gonzalez’s account seems credible as he sheds light and transparency on the very tricks used to discredit the double blind trial study. The manipulation of the trial study and the resultant distortion of the result represents nothing less than a crime against humanity.

I’ll ditto that. And I have just now seen in the Townsend Letter of January, 2016, a stunning report by Linda Isaacs, MD, as to the lawsuits and bankruptcy that Nick suffered. She was married to him from 1985-1991 and continues his cancer practice in New York today.

Now here is what Saul Green at Quackwatch.org had to say. Poor Saul, he is tasked with smearing doctors who are patently excellent:

“The Kelley and Gonzalez rationales for cancer treatment are largely speculative and invalid. A review of all material published by Kelley and Gonzalez shows neither to have had training in oncology or board certification in any medical specialty [Gosh golly, how horrible!]

“The theory of cancer causation as a deficit of pancreatic enzymes resulting in growth of trophoblast is speculation from turn-of-the-century (1911) ideas [when men were men, so to speak]; it conflicts with established facts about cancer causation and etiology confirmed by research done over the past 50 years [when men were bought, so to speak].

“Different cancers do not have identical causes, growth characteristics, or responses to treatments. Monitoring of treatment progress is done through proved methods for evaluating effectiveness. Self-assessment questionnaires are of limited value in evaluating progress of cancer or its treatment…”

As I said, poor Saul. [Assuming there really is a “Saul,” and I wouldn’t bet my house on it.]

Government, the NIH

Part 1 of this series of articles on Health Care suggested that we look at health issues in America before thinking about what kind of “health care” legislation is needed. But I also stated my bias – if you could call it that – about the Constitution. I claim that Article I, section 8 puts the kibosh on any such nonsense of legislative involvement in health care.

I shan’t attempt to show how the Nick Gonzalez clinical trial was botched by the National Health Institutes, the NIH. In fact I haven’t even moaned about the very existence of the NIH.

Let me do that now.

Moan

The website of NIH.gov says:

“The NIH traces its roots to 1887, when a one-room laboratory was created within the Marine Hospital Service, predecessor agency to the U.S. Public Health Service. The Marine Hospital Service had been established in 1798 to provide for the medical care of merchant seamen.” [Yeah, right, gotta help those sailors.]

What really is the NIH? It is a way to prevent good research. Most scientists need to earn a living. Many of them do this by applying for a grant from the NIH. What if they sent in an application describing creative work or controversial ideas — do you think they would be paid? Not on your Nellie.

What if they sent in something boring and repetitive? Surely they would get a grant because that would take them off the list of potential trouble makers. (Read: person who notice that an apple falls from a tree type thing.)

What if they sent in an idea for a pharmacological substance that had a potential use in genocide?  Now you’re talking!

OK, you think I am exaggerating. I wish I were.  Pediatrician Paul Offit (“A baby can tolerate even a hundred vaccines”) is a high mucky-muck in the NIH. The media website at NIH, in an article by Richard McManus says of him:

Dr. Paul Offit

In the myth of Sisyphus, our hero is continually frustrated when the boulder he is pushing up the mountainside rolls backward just as he approaches the summit. For veteran vaccine researcher, and now perhaps the nation’s default defender of vaccine use [Offit], his Sisyphusian effort to place the boulder of vaccine safety and efficacy atop the mountain of evidence is thwarted not by the boulder’s rolling back, but by the mountain gaining a spurious kind of altitude, based largely on guff.

See what I mean?

What Can Congress Do?

Congress needs to hear about the joyful side of the story. The 18 cures – there are indeed more than 18, perhaps 35 – should be shouted to the rooftops.  The senators who today are labouring over a hot stove of “how much should Blue Cross get?” could be making millions of people happy by revealing the true facts.  Here is just one of Virginia Livingston’s patient reports:

Patient “J.M.” — Age thirty-five, had a left radical mastectomy March 3, 1965, when four months pregnant. Pathological diagnosis was infiltrating carcinoma, scirrhus and medullary types. After delivery of a normal child she had a hysterectomy May 28, 1965, and was placed on estrogen therapy from August 24, 1966, through January 9, 1967. Autogenous vaccine was made which she took for a year and intermittently since. This type of tumor is universally fatal. Her physician says she is in good health at the present time (1972) with no signs of recurrence.

Still, I am really into punishment nowadays. I would like to see Congress use the authority of government to crack down on the miscreants. Granted, “punishment” is not in Article I, Section 8. A senator is not a law enforcer. But legislatures, whether federal or state, can always hold hearings to investigate anything.

How about they take the data from page 232 of my Consider the Lilies book, and call for an investigation. I say these curers were probably murdered: Max Gerson, Robert Lincoln, Georges Lakhovsky, and William Reich, MD (who died in jail). Also, US Senator Charles Tobey, who was helping Robert Lincoln.

It also appears to me that Rife’s wife was “taken out” and so was MJ Scott’s sister and brother. How can all this go unpunished, indeed unacknowledged?  I myself would be glad to give testimony to a Senate hearing. Oops, what if I’m already a senator?  No problem, I’ll just be sitting on the other side of the table.

Picture it. Picture it!

–Mary Maxwell will be campaigning at a July Fourth evening concert of the Tuscaloosa Symphony Orchestra, by the lake. She would be so pleased to see you.