Why would the medical community suppress an effective cancer treatment?

by John Smith[1], edited and republished copyright © 2019 Healing Cancer Naturally

This question is a stumbling block for some people that they just cannot seem to go beyond. The question is repeated ad nauseam and in incredulous tones, as if it shouldn’t even be contemplated. What some people actually mean when they ask it is, "Doctors wouldn’t suppress an effective cancer treatment so I won’t look at the facts you are presenting." But as a philosopher so lucidly observed,

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation without investigation."[2]

So, please proceed with an objective and questioning mind. Let me preface my answer with this. I know for an absolutely irrefutable fact that a minimum of twelve highly effective treatments for cancer have been successfully suppressed by orthodox medicine in the last 80 years.[3]

Becoming a Doctor

I’m going to ask that you, the reader, put yourself in the same shoes as that of every would-be doctor in America. This will give you a better understanding of the process and sacrifices made by every person who has earned a MD in the last 20 some years. You decided by the time you reached sixth grade that you wanted to become a doctor because you like helping people and you are very interested in the sciences. You work hard in high school and do very well on the S.A.T.s.

It's time for college. You once again study diligently and your average GPA is 3.57. You then study for the grueling Medical College Admission Test (M.C.A.T.) required by most medical schools. Now it’s the big one, medical school. You work your tail off 14 hours a day 6/7 days a week for four more years of very determined effort. Wait, you are not finished yet, but you can begin paying off those college and medical school loans of around a $150,000.

Now its time to embark on residency and specialty training. You have chosen to specialize in Internal Medicine and to sub-specialize in oncology. That’s about another 5/6 years training. Phew! You’ve finally made it. All the gut-busting hard work has paid off. At 31 you are an oncologist.

During medical school and residency you were taught very little about nutrition/diet and absolutely nothing about so-called alternative cancer treatments. You heard a little about laetrile from one of your professors and he told you that there was absolutely no evidence for its efficacy and also it could be dangerous.

Believing the professor (he must know, right?), you don’t bother looking into it further. When you were staying for the weekend at a fellow student’s house whose father is a doctor and the subject of alternatives came up, he told you that "they were garbage peddled by quacks, don’t waste your time".

So, you begin treating patients blissfully ignorant of the many treatments you are not allowed to prescribe. After several years you become increasingly disillusioned with the orthodox treatment options for cancer. You see the abysmal results you are getting and even the people that have completed five-year remissions; the side effects are appalling.

Over the years several patients tell you about alternatives that had worked for a friend, so you decide to look into it. You start meeting with people who have the medical records proving that they had cancer but used different treatments and they are now cancer-free for 3/5/10 years.

After a year or so of investigation and talking with some alternative cancer therapists, you really think that there is something to this. You also find out that if the AMA/NCI find out that you even mention Hoxsey, Laetrile, 714X, antineoplastons to your patients, you face serious repercussions from the AMA. Really becoming involved in unapproved treatments will result in loss of hospital privileges, and probably the loss of your medical license. Not to mention being blackballed by the ACS, ostracized by your peers and branded a "quack".

You find yourself in a very difficult dilemma. You know chemotherapy is worthless for most cancer patients and deadly for some with horrendous side effects. But everything that you have worked for is at stake. You make $300,000 a year and live a very comfortable lifestyle that you have certainly earned.

You still owe $50,000 on those school loans, have two kids, a five thousand a month mortgage, two car loans and all the other expenses that go with your lifestyle. You are nearly 40 years old. How will you earn a living if you lose your medical license?

As you can see, reader, doctors have much to lose by prescribing medicines not approved by the medical cartel.
What would you do?

Human Nature/Ego

Doctors are an American icon. Given the choice, most parents would love to see their children become a doctor. They hold a vital position in our society. We trust them with the lives of our loved ones and ourselves.

But they are not Gods, as some seem to think. They are human and are ruled by the same thing that rules all of us; human nature. We’re a complex mixture of emotions, character traits (sympathy, greed, helpfulness, loyalty, deceit, empathy, corruption, selfishness, philanthropy etc.) and personality. Our upbringing/environment, education, life experiences and peers mold us.

Some people think that higher ethical and moral standards are automatically bestowed upon people along with advanced degrees, such as a MD or Ph.D. I wish it was true, but it is not. Doctors are just as likely to lie or cheat for personal gain as anybody else is. It doesn’t matter how many Harvard degrees a person has if they are willing to sacrifice their morals and professional ethics for money or career advancement. Unfortunately there is no shortage of people willing to do this; welcome to Corporate America.

Never underestimate the power of human ego. Doctors have earned quite a reputation for being arrogant. They’ve spent about ten years in training to be an oncologist and tens of thousands of dollars on their education. They think that they know it all. But all they know is what they have been taught — period.

Raphaele and Michael Horwin tragically lost their two year old son to brain cancer in 1999. They researched their son's particular cancer, and orthodox cancer treatment in general for thousands of hours. Whilst investigating other treatment options for their son, Alexander, they came upon Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons. It has by far the most success (if given before chemotherapy/radiation treatment destroys the immune system) for their son’s type of cancer.

The Horwins’ experiences and knowledge can teach us much about orthodox cancer treatments and oncologists. When they mentioned Burzynski to oncologists, they found that orthodox oncologists were adamantly opposed to his therapy and reacted strongly and emotionally at the mere mention of his name.

Why are they so much against it? A couple of reasons. First, It’s a massive blow to their egos and their profession's credibility to even contemplate the possibility that there is a far better treatment available for medulloblastoma than they are prescribing.

Secondly, their consciences. Who wants to admit that you have been putting young children and their families through hell with chemotherapy/radiation treatment when a far superior treatment has been available for around 20 years?

Yet virtually all of these oncologists have never visited Burzynski’s laboratory to see the process or question him about it.

There is a great quote from the late David Stewart who funded French genius Gaston Naessens' research for years during the mid 1970s until his death in 1984. Naessens has patented a very effective nontoxic cancer treatment, called 714X. He also built a microscope that could see tiny organisms in their live state, opening up a whole New World for biology.

When talking with other researchers to try and get them to look into Naessens' microscope and see his work, Stewart said,

"I can say categorically that most scientific researchers with whom I have had to deal are highly opinionated, arrogant, condescending, and have built-in, insurmountable prejudices. While showing not the slightest desire to learn Naessens’ techniques, they are nevertheless not loathe to brush aside his findings without having any knowledge whatsoever about them."

Economic Factors

Risking his/her medical license is a difficult decision even if you became a doctor with the most honorable motives and really wanted to help people.

Never forget however that not everybody becomes a doctor to help humanity. Unfortunately, money/material objects have become the number one obsession for many Americans these days. A significant amount of people become doctors solely for the money and social bragging rights that being a doctor affords them.

People who are in it for the money are not going to let ethical standards get in the way of making their boat payment. Even people who became doctors for the best reasons, over time their once high ethical standards often take a back seat to financial considerations.

Oncologists and the hospitals they work for make a huge amount of money administering chemotherapy/radiation therapy. According to the above-mentioned Horwins, children diagnosed with brain tumors are a source of considerable profit to both the oncologists and the hospital. For a single day of chemo drug treatment, they will bill insurance companies more than $4,000.

What is more, there appear to be financial incentives given by drug companies to oncologists (who reportedly receive a premium for every patient they manage to enlist into a study using an experimental chemo manufactured by the company).

Looking at the bigger picture, doctors are only allowed to prescribe what has been sanctioned by the medical cartel comprised of the AMA/FDA/NCI/ACS. These organizations have a long history of corruption and conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical companies.

Drug companies are the silent, but omnipotent partners in American medicine. They will stop at nothing to protect their massive investments in cancer drug patents and profits. It costs drug companies hundreds of millions of dollars and about ten years to patent a new drug. The last thing they want is competition from natural (non-patentable) or inexpensive treatments.[4]

Thousands of hospital oncology departments across America have multi-million dollar investments in radiology machines. Radiation therapy is a very lucrative business for hospitals.[5] We should never forget that cancer treatment/research combined is a huge business, exceeding $110 billion a year.[6]

If people were given access to nontoxic, cheap, effective cancer treatments, quite obviously the chemotherapy and radiation dollars would be virtually zero. Not to mention an end to traditional mainstream oncology and radiation therapy professions.


To some extent doctors are as much a victim of the system as we are. Their hands are tied and they must work within strict guidelines. Most doctors have their patients' best interests at heart. The majority of people who work for the NCI/AMA/FDA/ACS are good enough people. But they are not the ones making the decisions. The people in charge have been promoted because they have proven that they will do anything to further their career.

But I do severely criticize the silent majority for the serious crime of blind conformity. Come on, their treatments are killing far more than they are curing, when are they going to start seriously questioning them? I understand doctors have a lot at stake and individually they have little power. But if dozens put on a united front, they would be able to bring about change. At least try!

Summing Up

We’ve been led to believe that "doctor knows best," when in fact that is often not the case. Doctors are only as good as their information and the treatments they are allowed to prescribe.

Oncologists have a huge time and money (education) investment in becoming a doctor. Even investigating unapproved therapies can cause them trouble. Recommending them will mean peer ridicule, being ostracized by the medical community and probably losing their medical license. They have an enormous incentive to maintain the status quo, namely, their large paycheck, emotional belief system, personal/professional credibility and career advancement.

Never underestimate human ego. Oncologists have spent about ten years in training. They think they know everything. But all they is what they have been taught. It would be a massive blow to their ego, not to mention wounded pride and professional integrity, to ever admit that they have been prescribing far inferior treatments for decades.

Oncologists are controlled by the medical industry, which basically consists of the AMA/FDA/ACS/NCI. These institutions have very close ties to the pharmaceutical companies. The AMA/FDA/ACS/NCI have a long history of corruption.

Think about this for a moment. What do doctors do and who are they really serving? They are in the business of administering pharmaceutical company products. When you go to a doctor you are normally prescribed some kind of drug. Are doctors these days much more than highly trained sales representatives for the drug companies?

Cancer treatment/research is a $110+ billion dollar a year industry. Natural or inexpensive treatments would make most, if not all, chemotherapy/radiation obsolete. Drug companies and hospitals will do anything to protect their billions of dollars in profits from cancer drugs/radiation therapy.

In the words of Barry Lynes, author of "The Cancer Cure That Worked":[7]

"It took me years to realize that the people in control of the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple, quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis, peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which serves only those 'inside' who are playing the great, lucrative 'expert' game."

Please do something about the most appalling scandal in the history of medicine. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year while the medical cartel suppresses very effective cancer treatments.[8]

... and for the best, easiest, and least expensive ways knows to heal cancer

after studying the subject for some twenty years, click here.


1 Not his real name. "John" used to have a website where he published critical articles on the cancer industry and medical politics which he held responsible for the death of untold Americans. I have reasons to assume that he was attacked and threatened by the vested interests he so bravely exposed, and had to "go into hiding" for reasons of safety.

2 Compare the slightly different version of this Herbert Spencer quote under On Life, Truth & Philosophy: Quotes and Facts.

3 For rich evidence and examples supporting this conclusion, see History of Alternative Cancer Treatment and Books on medical politics. Also see the "22 'Greatest Hits'" report with affordable treatment options I personally recommend and would use myself.

4 To explore the true depth of the literally death-dealing practices reigning in the pharmaceutical industry, read Insider proves pharmaceutical industry puts money / profits before patients' health — and life: Massive Big Pharma corruption exposed by whistleblower.

5 See Radiation treatment: why is radiotherapy routinely used?.

6 See On Cancer Business & the Cancer Industry: Quotes and Facts and the detailed coverage under Cancer Research, Toxicity Testing & Animal Experimentation: an Unholy Union?.

7 See Books on the history of alternative cancer treatments.

8 Concrete easy-to-implement suggestions can be found under How Can I Help Bring an End to the Pharmaceutical/Medical Industry’s Cancer Profiteering.

Sponsored Links

Related sections


Copyright © 2004-2023 and respective authors.
Unauthorized republishing of content is strictly forbidden. Each and every breach of copyright will be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the disclaimer.