Dr. R. L. Wysong
September 1987


    Canned and powdered milk formulas for babies were considered a wonderful technological achievement.  The breast became a cosmetic ornament, an inferior replacement for manufactured products in cans and bottles. Propaganda by manufacturers, professionals,  and academia argued their superiority.
    Over the last twenty years, it has become clear that baby formulas are the granddaddy of all junk foods. This is well documented in the literature. There is a much higher morbidity in babies who are fed canned or bottle foods. There is almost a thousand times more lead in many baby formulas than in breast milk. Long chain fatty acids are compromised as are zinc and copper. Toxic trans-fats are added.  The pantothenic acid to thiamin ratio is distorted. Unlike mothers milk, formulas contain no active enzymes, including bile activated lipase and/or biotinidase which increases biotin utilization in the breast fed infant.  Formulas are absent of lactoferrin and probiotics which inhibit gut pathogens.
    This only begins the list of disparity between infant milk formulas and breast milk. Clinical research has shown that breast feeding babies increases immunological competence, decreases childhood cancer and decreases the risk of breast disease in the mother. Not to be discounted is the fact that there is a difference in bond between the mother and child when one is fed a bottle and propped up in a baby crib, while the other is snuggled, held and nurtured at the breast of the mother. The damage from bottle-fed formulas through the decades has yet to be fully calculated. In spite of the evidence, over a million babies per year in the USA are fed bottled formula exclusively during their first six months of life. Convenience is king.
    It was not too long ago that bottled baby formulas were introduced in third world countries free of charge to get them hooked. Companies did this until it was no longer economically feasible. Exactly how that was determined is hard to say, but when they withdrew the free program and required that the products be paid for, the mother's milk had dried up. Many were financially incapable of buying formulas and as a result disease and malnutrition resulted.
    The merit of a raw, live, natural food over the processed counterpart is undeniable. It doesn’t matter what is in a package -- if it is not raw, live, natural and whole it cannot be equal or superior to the real thing.

    In a study of cancer therapy for nasal malignancies, cytoreductive surgery in combination with various doses of radiation were compared. What caught my attention was the fact that there were no controls.  One form of cancer therapy is measured against another form of cancer therapy, or various doses of chemotherapeutic agents or radiation or types of surgery are compared. They are all rated against one another. But where is the control? Specifically, what would happen if the patient did not experience any treatment whatsoever. Or what would happen if the patient did not have traditional treatments, but instead received supportive care and better nutrition?
    Society's approach to cancer reflects the prevailing attitude toward health care in general. It argued that it would be unethical to not treat a control group of people who had cancer. This parallels the attitude toward disease treatment in the distant prescientific past. For example, blood letting was used for centuries. It was only in the early 19th century that studies were designed to test the validity of blood letting with controls. The only testing done prior was to vary the technique. Never were tests performed to determine whether blood letting, in any form, was equal to or superior to not blood letting at all. When economic interests are at stake it is easy for the establishment to fall into the habit of just testing a practice against itself without any baseline control.
    In today's approach to cancer, causes are usually not addressed. Rather the disease is attached once a person has already succumbed. Cancer therapy deserves re-examination. Statistical studies, done at Harvard indicate that we are losing the war on cancer. The chance that you, someone in your family, or a close friend will not be struck with cancer during your lifetime is now statistically zero. Three out of four families will have to deal with the disease. Since President Nixon's "war on cancer" in 1971, over twenty billion dollars have been spent for research, and over forty-five billion dollars a year are spent on cancer treatments. In spite of all these dollars, the death-rate increased 10% from 1962 to 1982. This means that during the period of time that money was being increasingly spent on the disease, the death-rate continued to escalate. The most optimistic appraisal of modern cancer therapies would be that there may be a 2% to 3% relative success rate. But that would only be in terms of five year survivability, not cure or eradication.
    There are tremendous vested interests at stake in the fifty-billion dollar a year industry of care and maintenance of cancer patients. Change will not occur readily with such stakes. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) plays with statistics and continues to argue that there is success, that early diagnosis and aggressive therapy are the key. This is argued using a five-year survival rate. Such complimentary figures are window dressed to the public as winning the war. But serious examination shows that we are not. The National Cancer Institute depends upon monies from the government to continue its existence. Therefore, it must present figures that look optimistic, as if something significant is being accomplished.
    Methods used to diagnose cancer histologically are now also in question. Many of the cytologic features examined to determine whether a biopsy is malignant or benign are in question. If basic methods used to determine whether a cancer is malignant are in question, many may be subject to unnecessary treatments. But this will help success figures.
    Let's go through an example. Very early cellular changes in the prostate are supposedly indicative of malignancy. When these patients are treated at this very early non-symptomatic stage, they are reported to survive longer. This gives the illusion of an improved five year survival rate.  Upon re-examination, many diagnosed in these early stages would never have developed symptomatic disease.  Cancer therapy therefore takes credit for curing people who would never be symptomatic.
    A diagnosis of cancer is horrifying. It can devastate the family emotionally and financially. The treatment can be worse than the disease. The present approach is not resulting in an increasing cure rate. A new approach is in order.
    The medical care system is called health care. It is disease care. Very little effort is spent on building, fortifying, and enhancing health. It is after-the-fact medicine. The medical community is at the bottom of the cliff repairing people after they have fallen off – they should be at the top of the cliff building fences or telling people how they can walk along the cliff without falling off in the first place.
    Societies which are not touched by Western civilization, and for which cancer is essentially non-existent, give us an important lead. Both historical as well as present-day societies untouched by Western industrialized society are largely free of cancer.  Increasing evidence is also surfacing proving that most cancers are directly related to the modern environment, whether that is pollution of the air, what is put on and into our foods (our food is an intimate environment), the ways the foods are processed, the water we drink, and so forth. We are far removed from the natural, more pristine existence which nurtured all life throughout its millennia of existence prior to Westernized, industrialized society. We are subject to a wide array of substances foreign to biological experience (toxins), which have been shown in the laboratory and through prospective as well as retrospective studies to be direct contributory factors in the induction of cancer. This is not to say that there are not genetic pre-dispositions, and that there may not be micro-biological agents or background natural carcinogens ubiquitous in nature that can elicit cancer, but these appear to be minor factors. Cancer is the result of a scenario of factors stemming from the disruption and alteration of our environment in a major multifaceted way.
    Although we are led to believe that the report we get back from a modern medical lab is done with sophisticated technology and accurate, many laboratory results are highly suspect. There is often a margin of error as great as 50%. Such “early diagnosis” can present its own set of hazards: if an early diagnosis of cancer is invalid, it still throws the family into extreme stress and subject one to treatments that are highly hazardous unnecessarily.
    Early treatment of cancer is suspect because according to the Rhen Hypothesis, cancer is a gross manifestation of what has been incubating for at least 15 years. If cancer has been present for 15 years, treating it “early” in year 15 when it is “early diagnosed” is not particularly advantageous.
    Cancer deaths in 1900 took one in thirty lives. Now 100 years later the disease takes one in five. Cardiovascular disease took one in seven lives and now it takes one out of two. We indeed have a problem in approach to degenerative diseases. Such diseases are linked to the increasing entrenchment and advance of the industrialized technological environment.  That provides the key to a more salutary approach.
    Therapies should be sought that are less likely to do harm.  Both chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer and thus do not fit with the “first do no harm” motto of medicine.
    There are many non-toxic prospects. Even the NCI is engaging in a significant research to show the link between diet and the incidence of cancer. This is welcomed and applauded, but is almost too little, too late.
    Researcher have discovered immune suppressor fractions in blood important during two conditions in mammals in which foreign tissue is tolerated, during pregnancy and during neoplasia. In effect they prevent the rejection of foreign tissue. An embryo is a foreign object to the mother since it is genetically dissimilar. This foreign genetic material should by all rights be rejected by her immune system, but it is not and this is a result of these immune suppressing fractions. These same immune suppressing fractions have also been found to be high in the blood levels of cancer patients, and efforts are being made with some success to filter these immune suppressing fractions from blood. The result is that the immune system attacks the cancer and destroys it.
    Work being done in Europe demonstrates plant extracts can stimulate DNA repair mechanisms. DNA repair mechanisms are responsible for repairing genetic material. This occurs on an ongoing basis in normal tissue, since all of our cells are subject to mutations from both chemicals and radiation from various sources such as cosmic rays coming from outer space.  Mutations unchecked can lead to cancer. Their repair can prevent it.
    A researcher in Germany works with an oil/protein combination in cancer therapy. The oil is a fresh, raw form of essential fatty acids, linoleic and linolenic, in combination with protein. She has reported a great deal of success in cancer treatment.
    Healing-from-within therapy is not common, because there is a mega-industrial healthcare complex that has a profit cash cow working with technology and patented drugs. Modern conventional treatment does not stimulate healing from within, rather it is the “seek-and-destroy” type. We even have laws against the use of anything else. Anyone trying to use natural healing methods -- laetrile, the Budwig protein/oil combination, nutritional therapy or any others out of the mainstream -- could be subject to scrutiny from peers, revocation of license, and perhaps even criminally charged. Health care is a monopoly not only condoned but supported and enforced by government.
    It's interesting that when cancer strikes, the question, what is the cause?, doesn't even come to mind -- or it may come to mind and be quickly dismissed. But cause is the preeminently important thing to be addressed. We have to get at causes in order to effect solutions and the return to health. The patient usually first assumes, or is instructed, that cancer is just one of those things, and then the mind is turned to modern therapy.
    Therapies should be undertaken that are designed not only to prevent the disease, but to treat it in a way that is more humane, safe, and stimulating to the ultimate repair mechanism itself -- the body.
    Diets shown as preventive for cancer, all have one thing in common.  They increase the intake of raw, fresh, natural foods. Natural foods contain unaltered nutrients that either have antioxidant, free-radical-fighting or immune-stimulating effects.
    The answers to the cancer dilemma takes us back to some very simple basics. Prevention is key.  Exercise, daily sunlight, clean water, cleaning the environment and eating natural foods are starting points.
        AVMA Journal, August 1987