Newsletter #98
Lee Euler, Editor
[Image] Cancer Defeated logo
Web Version | Subscribe | Back Issues | Resource Center | Write us
About Cancer Defeated!

How Conspiracy and Fraud
Sabotage the War on Cancer

A review of the new book by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.,
released May 17, 2011

National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society:
Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest

In 1971 the American Cancer Society (ACS) aggressively promoted the "War Against Cancer" — running a full page ad in The New York Times declaring, "Mr. Nixon, You Can Cure Cancer". President Nixon enthusiastically embraced the National Cancer Act, increased NCI's budget from $150 to $220 million for the first year, and gave NCI broad new powers and independence.

But the NCI surrendered to the enemy before the war began. . .

Continued below. . .


The Case Against Detoxing

Why detoxing can actually make your body more toxic…Plus what to do instead to rid your body of pesticides, heavy metals, and other dangerous chemicals

You’ve probably heard that detoxing is good for your health. You’ve heard it can remove pesticides, heavy metals and chemicals from your body. You’ve heard that it can bolster your immune system and help support a healthy liver.

But here’s something you should know: Detoxing can actually make your body more toxic! That’s right, detoxing can actually make you sicker!

Let me explain...


Forty years and tens of billions of dollars later, this war clearly has not been won. But why not — with all the resources that have been thrown at it?

Samuel S. Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois-School of Public Health, shows how conspiracy and fraud may have sabotaged the war on cancer. Just for the record, I met Dr. Epstein once, and he's an extremely serious scholar and scientist. This isn't tabloid stuff.

One of the NCI's own poobahs dropped this bombshell — "The NCI has become what amounts to a government pharmaceutical company." (From a 1998 Washington Post interview with Dr. Samuel Broder, NCI's former Director, who then went on to become successive Chief Officer of two major cancer drug companies.)

Empty Promises

Since 1971 the NCI and the ACS have reassured us again and again that the war is going well, with a blizzard of press releases, briefings, and media reports. They claim major progress in the war on cancer… including 'miracle breakthroughs' and promises (1984, 1986) that cancer mortality would be slashed in half by the year 2000.

But eleven years after that deadline, we're much farther from winning the cancer war than when it was first declared… as proven by dramatic increases in childhood cancers and cancers that have no relation to smoking.

Take a look at these incidence rates for major cancers, 1975 - 2007. Male lung cancer is down, as you'd expect in view of the decrease in cigarette smoking. But there are shocking increases in other types of cancer…

CANCERS % Increase
Childhood (ages 0-19)
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia
Female Breast — Postmenopausal
Testes
Thyroid
Melanoma
Kidney and Renal Pelvis
Lung
    Overall
    Male
    Female

All Sites
30
82
67
23
60
145
163
107

13
-22
110

15

Meanwhile, how are the generals faring in this war? Very well, thank you. NCI enjoys the benefit of 34 times as much of the taxpayers' money — to the tune of $5.2 billion this year. Of course, some of that increase is from inflation. Adjusted for inflation, they're getting almost six times as much money as they were getting in the last year before Nixon declared war on cancer.

What's more, this "war" helps the ACS, a private charity, raise tens of millions in public donations.

After decades of highly publicized and misleading promises of progress, we're still left with the sad reality…

We're losing this war in a ROUT...

Dr. Epstein cites strong scientific evidence that the cancer epidemic is caused by exposure to industrial carcinogens in our environment — in our air, water, soil, workplaces and consumer products like food, toiletries, cosmetics and household products, and even common prescription drugs. Most of these toxins and pollutants could be avoided.

Says Dr. Richard Clapp, epidemiology professor at Boston University School of Public Health: "We have not begun to win the war on cancer. We have not even turned the corner. We have to move beyond the body count and begin to prevent exposures before they occur."

Two reasons we're being trounced in this war…

  1. NCI and ACS focus their vast resources and medical-doctor mindsets on trying to treat cancer once it strikes, not on cancer prevention.

    Case in point: the NCI allocates less than 3% of its budget to environmental causes of cancer, while the ACS allocates less than 0.1% toward the same. ACS, as you'll see in a moment, devotes quite a bit of effort to DEFENDING carcinogens!

    These cancer generals insist on a "damage-control" strategy, similar to treating wounded soldiers, instead of trying to halt the further advance of the enemy.

  2. The cancer generals are in bed with special interests that either oppose policies that could prevent cancer, or treat prevention as a minor sideline.
  3. For example, the ACS depends heavily on their big "Excalibur donors" — mostly made up of chemical companies opposed to regulating carcinogens and pharmaceutical companies seeking approval for their highly-touted "miracle" drugs.

    Likewise, the NCI has incestuous relationships with cancer drug companies, evidenced by the Washington Post quote above, and more…

NCI's revolving door with the cancer industry

From its beginning, the NCI stank up the place with conflicts of interest — more than space allows me to review here. A few examples will give you the idea:

  • The first chairman of Nixon's 1971 NCI Executive Cancer Panel, Benno C. Schmidt, was an investment banker and senior drug company executive — with close ties to oil, steel, and chemical industries.

    Following him in the 1980s was Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum — which was responsible for the Love Canal disaster.

  • Dr. Frank Rauscher, an initial NCI director, later resigned to become senior VP of ACS. In 1988, he became executive director of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association — which fought regulation of carcinogenic fiberglass.
  • Board members of NCI's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Comprehensive Cancer Center in 1993 had extensive ties to cancer drug companies… plus oil, steel, fiberglass and tobacco — in addition to $4 million in institutional holdings in drug companies.
  • Dr. Vincent DeVita, NCI director (1980-1988) and Dr. John Mendelsohn, president of NCI's University of Texas MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center, were consultants and board members of ImClone Systems Inc. — which was seeking FDA approval of its cancer drug, Erbitux. Neither DeVita nor Mendelsohn disclosed these interests in media interviews promoting the cancer drugs.
  • DeVita published an article, "The War on Cancer" in the Cancer Journalof which he is co-editor — claiming major progress in cancer drug treatment (2002). But, he conveniently failed to disclose his commercial interests in these drugs in the article, or on his website CancerSource.com… contrary to the Journal's disclaimer about no conflicts of interest…
  • Board members of the National Dialogue on Cancer (NDC) — a spinoff from ACS -- included names with clearly vested interests in keeping the cancer industry alive… 100 representatives of the cancer drug industry, and Shandwick International PR, whose major clients include RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.

    Later, NDC hired Edelman — another tobacco PR firm — with Edelman's pledge it would sever its industry ties. Edelman represents Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, the Altria Group (parent company of Philip Morris) — plus Kraft, and fast-food and beverage company giants.

    Instead of severing its ties with the tobacco industry, it continued to fight tobacco control programs in the U.S. from its overseas operations.

  • With your tax money, NCI funded research for the cancer drug Taxol (Bristol-Myers). After expensive clinical trials, you, the taxpayer, paid again for developing its manufacturing process. And finally, NCI gave Bristol-Myers exclusive right to sell Taxol at the inflationary price of $5 per milligram — more than 20 times the cost of production.
  • And Taxol is not alone. We taxpayers made possible the government's funding for over two-thirds of all cancer drugs now on the market.
  • Meanwhile, NCI effectively blocked all funding for R&D or clinical trials for promising nontoxic alternative cancer therapies.

Meanwhile, back to the ACS, the tail that wags the NCI dog…

Super strong ties to a harmful "diagnostic"…

The ACS is linked at the hip to the mammography industry. Epstein notes that ACS's every move reflects the interests of mammogram machine and film manufacturers. No wonder the ACS continues to encourage mammography even though it's now not recommended at all for pre-menopausal women!

The annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion if every woman followed ACS/NCI mammography guidelines. Incredible!

The hyped-up National Breast Cancer Awareness Month…

Each October, the highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) campaign uses funding from its sole sponsor, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, to get its message out. And just what is that message?

Well, a bit of background on Zeneca is revealing…

It's a spin-off of UK's Imperial Chemical Industries, one of world's largest manufacturers of chlorine and other industrial chemicals, including those implicated as causes of breast cancer.

Zeneca is the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling breast cancer prevention drug ($400 million in annual sales). Interestingly, Zeneca also now directly manages 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals, and owns a 50% stake in these centers known as Salick Health Care.

For all practical purposes, they cause cancer, and then profit from cancer drugs and patient care centers…

ACS and NCI aggressively promote Tamoxifen. Zeneca is proclaimed on every NBCAM leaflet, poster, publication and commercial as its sole sponsor.

It's a masterful PR coup for Zeneca — providing them with "goodwill" besides big money from millions of Americans.

Vicious attacks on the docs who push alternative choices…

The $12 billion cancer drug industry and ACS devote a large part of their energy and resources to ferocious attacks on their opponents.

The ACS's Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management periodically reviews alternative therapies. But its members are all advocates of expensive and usually toxic drugs — and opponents of alternative therapies.

They maintain what amounts to an official blacklist of non-approved cancer treatments. They claim — often falsely — that there's no scientific evidence for these treatments, and they hand down their opinions as law to clinicians, their cheerleader science writers, and the public.

Once an oncologist is associated with "unproven methods" he or she is ousted by the cancer establishment. The poor heretic is denied all future funding — and then systematic harassment really gets started.

They conduct witch-hunts against alternative practitioners, in sharp contrast to their adoring, unquestioning endorsement of conventional chemotherapy.

And then there's the pesticide industry…

In 1993, just before PBS Frontline aired a special report, "In Our Children's Food," the ACS launch a counter-attack in strong support of the pesticide industry. It trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancers, and reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe — even for babies.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that ACS would rush to defend pesticides? Even assuming they're right — and pesticides are nearly harmless — why is it at the top of their agenda to discredit a public television report about a substance that might cause cancer?

This is the same group that insists it's a wonderful idea for women to get a mammogram every year that exposes them to massive amounts of cancer-causing radiation — all for a test that's known to be inaccurate and nearly useless.

The ACS has also repeatedly failed to warn us about environmental toxins. A few examples:

  • They reassure women that dark hair dyes are safe, and trivialize the six studies that show a link to cancer.
  • They pressured the FDA to ease restrictions on silicone gel breast implants, which are clearly linked to cancer in several rodent studies and more…
  • They denied any risks of cancer from drinking genetically-engineered (rBGH) milk, despite strong scientific evidence linking it to breast, prostate and colon cancers.
  • Formaldehyde exposure has been associated with breast cancer deaths for years… Yet there's no warning from a long-standing study showing cosmetics and personal care products may contain up to eight ingredients which are precursors to formaldehyde.
  • Even Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus, now NCI director, seems unaware of the nearly 700 carcinogens to which you are exposed every day.
  • The 2010 "President's Panel" report suggests the true burden of environmentally caused cancer is grossly underestimated. Nearly 80,000 chemicals are now on the U.S. market and used regularly or daily. The panel listed a wide range of cancers caused by carcinogens — breast, kidney, leukemia, liver, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Disturbingly, NCI has failed to develop — let alone publicize — a registry of avoidable exposures to carcinogens… and has failed to respond to Congressional requests to create one — though they are required to by law (the National Cancer Act of 1971).

Do you see? NCI and ACS are largely devoted to defending the makers and sellers of chemicals that cause cancer!

Where your donations to this cancer charity really go

The ACS has an incredible fund-raising apparatus that would thrill any politician running for office.

Here's what Dr. Epstein reveals about the wide reach of ACS wealth:

  • Besides public donations, ACS boasts more than 300 "Excalibur industry donors" — each donating a "mere" $100,000 every year… Drug-makers Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Genentech, and Johnson & Johnson… polluters British Petroleum, DuPont, Akzo Nobel, Pennzoil, Concho Oil… And global cosmetic companies (that put carcinogens in their products) Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Christian Dior and Givaudan.

    Further, Edelman PR (major lobbyist for tobacco, fast food and beverage industries) handles all ACS legislative initiatives.

  • In 1988, the ACS had assets of more than $400 million — with $69 million in land, building, and equipment holdings. But ACS spent only $90 million on medical research and programs. Sixty percent of its budget went to generous salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead.
  • One year later, ACS assets zoomed to $700 million.
  • In 1991, the public gave almost $350 million to the ACS — believing ACS was really helping fight cancer. This money came from donations averaging $3500, plus high-profile campaigns like the springtime daffodil sale and the May relay races.
  • The American Cancer Society Foundation was created in 1992 to solicit donations of over $100,000. Corporate execs from pharmaceutical, investment banking, and the media industries drove this forward — specifics are in the book.

It's little wonder the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the nation's premier charity watchdog, charged in 1993: "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."

Shockingly, less than16% of all the money raised directly supports cancer patients, i.e., driving them to/from chemo sessions or providing pain meds.

Most funds always have and still do pay overhead, salaries, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of ACS national executives… and its regional chief executive officers, some of whom earn six figures, plus hundreds of other workers in regional offices around the country.

Aside from high salaries and overhead, most of the rest of the budget goes to fund research on profitable patented cancer drugs.

By 1998, ACS had a $380 million budget.

Yet its fundraising campaign continued to plead poverty and lament the lack of money for cancer research.

At the same time, it does almost nothing to combat dangerous contaminants in our everyday lives.

And it's still silent about its insider relationships with wealthy cancer drug, chemical, and other damaging industries.

Dr. Epstein overwhelmingly concludes there's a clear link between losing the cancer war and the failure to control costs and save lives through prevention. Prevention is likely the easiest, most effective way to reduce the number of cancer cases and deaths. Cancer is not only one of the most costly and often fatal diseases -- it's also one of the most avoidable.

And the evidence is in…

The world's largest "charity" squanders your hard-earned dollars… so you'd be well advised to deny them your dollars.

After all, money talks.

And if you've got cancer, you might be better off getting bitten by a poisonous snake! Well, not exactly. But there is a remarkable substance in snake venom that may hold out new hope for a cancer treatment. Scroll down and take a look. . .


Snake Venom Extract Holds New Hope
For Cancer Treatment

The venom from a Southern copperhead snakebite is miserably painful and sometimes fatal to humans. But, the same snake venom that can take a life can potentially save thousands of lives. One of the ingredients in the venom has even been found to obliterate cancer cells.

Continued below. . .


The Invisible "TOXIC TRIGGER" for Cancer and Arthritis. . .

. . .that no drug or
supplement can stop!

It doesn't matter how careful you are about your diet, lifestyle and supplements — you may still be racked with illness if your dental work harbors poisons and infections. On the other hand. . .

Patients have tossed their wheelchairs, junked their medicines, reversed "hopeless" cancer -- and more -- just by getting rid of the secret poison in their mouths.

It's an absolute, proven fact that mystery ailments like fatigue, diabetes, even blindness can disappear when you eliminate this hidden trigger for disease.

But picking the right "biological dentist" is not easy. A lot of unqualified and half-qualified dentists are now claiming to be "mercury-free." They can do you a great deal of harm. The process of removing old fillings and root canals can release so much toxic material, you're better off leaving it alone than going to the wrong dentist. You need to know who are the top experts in the field and how to reach them. We can help.

Now Cancer Defeated publishes a compact 55-page Special Report to give you all the resources you need to get rid of root canals, mercury amalgam fillings and cavitations. This report will put you on your way to healing cancer AND avoiding it.

Click here and keep reading!


The magic ingredient, contortrostatin, is a protein found solely in copperheads. Lab studies show the compound works as an elixir to inhibit the growth of several types of cancer cells.

Great news, right?

Absolutely. All we have to do now is figure out how effective the compound really is on humans. So far it's just been tested in cell cultures and lab animals.

How does it work?

Contortrostatin plays an important role when it comes to snakes and their food. Its purpose is to keep the blood of a snake's prey from clotting so the other compounds of the venom — the poisons -- can spread quickly and immobilize the animal. Not pleasant to read, but stay with me. . .

In the world of medicine, the protein has a much more appealing purpose. When used as an anti-cancer agent, it freezes the spread of cancer. And, it's believed to work for several types of cancer.

Contortrostatin impresses researchers because it takes on not just one but two jobs when used against cancer cells. It prevents cancer cells from forming new blood vessels and it stops bad cells from "infecting" healthy cells.

Halting the formation of new blood vessels is important because blood vessels function as the life source of a cancer tumor. When cancer cells want to spread, they make new blood vessels. Stopping this process — called angiogenesis -- is a key aim of certain conventional AND alternative cancer treatments.

If left unchecked, cancer's newly formed blood vessels pump nutrient-rich blood into the tumors, helping them grow and flourish.

Angiogenesis results from the interaction of certain proteins — called integrins -- found on the surface of cells. Contortrostatin intervenes by targeting these integrins. The snake venom protein is basically a dis-integrin (think of the word "disintegrate" and you'll get the picture). The dis-integrin stops integrins in their tracks.

This particular snake venom chemical doesn't attack the cell or blood vessel. Instead, it binds to the integrin and "confuses" an abnormal cell's communications.

Dr. Francis Markland, a biochemist at University of Southern California and lead researcher for contortrostatin studies, describes the process like this: "Integrins can carry signals from outside a cell to the cell's interior, but contortrostatin can substitute for that and alter the signal." It's sort of like contortrostatin turns all cell communication into static.

Mature blood vessels — the ones that feed healthy cells — do not have the same type of integrin, so good cells are left unharmed when contortrostatin comes on the scene.

This communication interference also allows contortrostatin to stop the spread of cancer to healthy cells. Metastasis, the term for the spread of a malignant tumor, also involves the use of integrins. Usually, cancer cells can move through blood vessel walls and spread to other parts of the body. Then they latch onto normal cells and invade. But, the venom extract disrupts the cell's ability to do this.

Basically, contortrostatin freezes cancer cells and keeps them from doing much of anything. They don't die, but at least they don't spread. This is important, because it's the spread of cancer that puts so many lives in danger. Cancer poses much less danger when it's confined to the same place where it started.

What do the studies say?

Dr. Markland has studied contortrostatin and its cancer-fighting abilities for over a decade. His research studies continue to look promising. But so far, all research has remained in petri dishes and lab rats. He has yet to test the protein on humans.

Research findings include:

  • A study on lab rats showed that the growth of breast cancer was inhibited by 70-80%. Plus, contortrostatin prevented cancer from spreading to the lungs by 90%.
  • The chemical caused a 60% reduction in prostate cancer tumor volumes.
  • Other lab animal studies have shown similar successes for stopping the spread of brain tumors and ovarian cancer.

The substance appears to have very few side effects. In some cases, there was reported oozing or bleeding around the area where contortrostatin was injected. That doesn't surprise me, since it's an anti-clotting agent.

I'm no fan of oozing or bleeding, so I want more information about how this affects humans. But if we're lucky, this side effect may be nothing compared to the nausea and weakness caused by chemotherapy.

The venom protein sounds like it has lots of potential. But research needs to move beyond the rat.

What's stopping more studies about this promising discovery?

One hurdle is that contortrostatin goes through the body fast. Once in the blood, it is quickly swept to the liver for disposal. As you know if you're a regular reader, the liver is the body's filter.

The other, bigger challenge is money. Snake venom is no easy prescription order to fill. It's difficult to isolate the protein from crude venom, so it's terribly expensive.

In order to extract contortrostatin, a copperhead must be irritated and forced to release venom in a jar. The amount obtained is just a few drops. Then, the liquid must be dried and purified to separate all toxic chemicals from the protein.

The end result: Contortrostatin makes up .01 percent of the snake venom. That's one part out of 10,000! It doesn't bode well for this chemical as a clinical drug.

What will scientists do about it?

I'm sorry to say that natural contortrostatin is not the ideal cancer cure. Dr. Markland and other scientists have been cranking away to find alternatives to the venom protein.

Viable alternatives would need to be more cost-effective and more soluble in the blood stream. Put simply, the large-scale production of a soluble version of contortrostatin could solve many problems.

The challenge is making such a protein.

Markland and his team have been using genetic engineering to try to synthesize the protein chemically rather than milking it from snakes. Through a process of gene splicing, the researchers are working to create recombinant DNA (a form of artificial DNA) that works biologically in the body.

The goal is to mass-produce contortrostatin. A genetically altered gene seems to be the answer.

Will the FDA ever approve this?

This makes me very curious about the future of this drug. Sure, the compound from snake venom sounds promising. But how do we know a genetically altered gene will do the best job?

We won't know until a lot more research is done. I'm interested to see if the natural venom or a synthetic version can stop cancer's progress consistently, in humans, and with minimal side effects.

I'm also curious about what Big Pharma thinks of the venom cure. A 2001 article in the U.K.'s Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that Dr. Markland, who has a patent on contortrostatin, was considering partnerships with several pharmaceutical companies.

That was ten years ago, and I've found no information on whether drug negotiations have progressed. My guess is drug manufacturers are still interested, but there must be some stumbling blocks to finding a new and improved contortrostatin gene.

If clinical trials show enough successful results, there's a good chance the FDA will go ahead with approval. In 1998, the administration gave the go-ahead for the production of Integrilin, a compound found in rattlesnake venom. It's used for treating patients with unstable angina, chest pains, and minor heart attacks.

My hope is that some drug company can develop a genetically engineered form of contortrostatin and that success comes out of the clinical trials. If it shows successful results and steers clear of side effects, I'd be happy to see it replace the poisons of mainstream chemotherapy. Of course it won't be cheap, but at least it may be safer and more effective.

Kindest regards,

Lee Euler,
Publisher


Resources:

Animals in Research.
http://science.education.nih.gov/animalresearch.nsf/Story1/Making+Medicines+from+Poisonous+Snakes
The Venom Cure. Nature on PBS. April 2005
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/the-venom-cure/video-copperhead-venom-and-cancer-research/4419
Di Rado, Alicia. USC biochemist's research on snake venom lands new patent. USC News, April 2003.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/8833.html
Das, Swarnali, 2007. "Snake Venom Protein: A Wonderful Medicine in Cancer Treatment"
http://www.pharmainfo.net/swarnali/publications/snake-venom-protein-a-wonderful-medicine-in-cancer-treatment
Finn, Robert. "Snake Venom Protein Paralyzes Cancer Cells," Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. Oxford University Press.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/4/261.full
Nalick, Jon. "The Good, the Bad and the Slimy." USC Health Magazine.
http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/01summer/slimy.html
Pinski, J, F. Markland, Q. Wang. "A novel therapy for prostate cancer based on the disintegrin contortrostatin," 2003.
http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=23&abstractID=100764

If you’d like to comment, write me at [email protected].  Please do not write asking for personal advice about your health. I’m prohibited by law from assisting you.  If you want to contact us about a product you purchased or a service issue, the email address is [email protected].


Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Ric McConnell Information Technology Advisor: Michelle Mato Webmaster: Steve MacLellan Fulfillment & Customer Service: Joe Ackerson and Cami Lemr


Health Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk.

Reminder: We're the publishers of Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, Adios-Cancer, Cancer Breakthrough USA, Missing Ingredient For Good Health, German Cancer Breakthrough and How to Cure Almost Any Cancer for $5.15 a Day. You're getting this email because you purchased one of these Special Reports and gave us permission to contact you. From time to time we'll alert you to other important information about alternative cancer treatments. If you want to update or remove your email address, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate link.

To ensure delivery of this newsletter to your inbox and to enable images to load in future mailings, please add [email protected] to your e-mail address book or safe senders list.

You are receiving this email at %$email$%.


Cancer Defeated
PO Box 1076,
Lexington, VA 24450