Equinox Press, 144 St. John’s Place, Brooklyn, New York 11217. USA
This book by Ralph Moss is profoundly different from its predecessors. In my opinion,
it is of great importance in the history of medicine as it describes with extreme
precision the caesura in the field of medicine which has become obvious everywhere.
This is clearly exemplified by the sweeping failure of the orthodox, “toximolecular”
school of medicine in treating diseases.
The disaster involving toxic chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer, which has now
become apparent, is the most important example of this failure of the orthodox, mechanical
and unbiological school of thought in medicine. In a few years there will be a similar
rude awakening in the field of chronic heart and circulatory diseases as well as
decalcification diseases, resulting in far-reaching changes in these areas as well.
I have known Ralph Moss for more than 24 years from my repeated visits to the Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Institute in New York, one of the leading institutes in the world. For years
Ralph was the research spokesman for this Institute. His immense expertise and at
the same time his detailed knowledge and integrity qualified him for this position.
One of the great experienced experimental researchers in that Institute was Kanematsu
Sugiura. He found that substances made of bitter almonds and apricot pits, the so-called
mandelonitriles, prevented lung metastases in experiments with animals. This knowledge
did not fit into the concept of oncological “orthodox medicine” in the United States
or in Germany, since it sabotaged their crusade against using “Laetrile,” an 1-glucose
mandelonitrile made from the pits of certain rare apricots.
When the order from higher-ups was issued to suppress the Sugiura results, Ralph
Moss left the Institute and bluntly revealed these cover-up practices in cancer research
in one of his books. Today, the Sloan-Kettering Institute is only a shadow of what
it was 25 years ago. Biologically-oriented researchers such as President Robert Good
and vice-presidents Chester Stock and Lloyd Old have left the Institute or are retired.
The whole affair started by Ralph Moss is not without some tragic irony: Today’s
research, which gives absolute priority to the so-called gene-reparative, non- toxic
agents for treating cancer, deals predominantly with the so-called “functional aldehydes,”
of which Laetrile - damned by the orthodox school of medicine - was one of the first.
When all is said and done, Ralph Moss had already begun the persistent dismantling
of unbiological orthodox inflexibility in clinical oncology over 20 years ago, without
those involved having taken notice.
This book by Ralph Moss, Questioning Chemotherapy, is a masterpiece of global importance
in the history of medicine. The reason for this being because it dissects the enormously
complex problem areas of the treatment of cancer with toxic chemotherapy by providing
a very simple, clear and indisputable panorama of facts. The results show that treatment
of cancer with toxic chemotherapy makes sense in some cases, but that as a hopeful
solution to the whole problem of cancer treatment, it is one of the greatest disillusions
in the history of medicine.
About eight years ago, Ralph Moss and I had a short discussion about the value of
the well-known chemotherapeutic drug cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan). In 1956 I had worked
with this new cytostatic substance in experiments at the Druckrey Laboratory in Freiburg:
It was possible to heal various tumors grafted onto test rats with this substance.
However, it was also possible to damage the animals - with small doses! - to such
an extent that the take of the tumor rate was greatly improved. Unfortunately, this
delicate balancing act between a healing and a damaging effect continues in the clinical
reality of cancer patients. This applies to all toxic or non-orthomolecular chemotherapeutic
Moss also sketches the stubborn mentality of the orthodox supporters of the exclusive
use of toxic chemotherapy. In my books I have on occasion predicted that the day
of reckoning for the orthodox, unbiological school of medicine and its failure would
be precipitated not by scientific discussion but simply by money. The tremendous
explosion of costs, which threatens to destroy health care programs worldwide, are
caused mainly by the errors made by the orthodox, unbiological school of medicine,
based on toximolecular (instead of orthomolecular) therapies. Ralph Moss seizes on
this subject in particular. The question is not only how good therapy results against
cancer can be achieved, but also how much they cost.
Toxic chemotherapy, namely, does very poorly with regard to costs, cost efficiency,
long-term results and usefulness in the early stages of preventive therapy. It is
not unusual to encounter enormous bills for treatment: $200,000 - $600,000 for breast
cancer (Moss), $84,000 (ovary cancer, Orlando), $220,000 for breast cancer (Boston),
325,000 German marks for breast cancer (Heidelberg). “It cost us 300,000 marks to
kill the patient within 10 months after first diagnosing a non- Hodgkin lymphoma”
(anonymous call from a doctor at a medical university). The rate of improvement after
such extreme treatment is minimal, the suffering of the patients under toxic chemotherapy
often very severe. Only children and adults with relatively rare tumors profit without
doubt from such aggressive therapy.
If it can be foreseen that a boat is liable to sink - as in the case of toxic chemotherapy
- then some thought should be given to finding a life boat. The latter can surely
be found in those therapeutic procedures which aim to repair the genetic and plasma-membrane
derailments of the cancerous cell. This is also the way in which Mother Nature protects
her charges from cancerous derailment. The research funds have already been provided
by the Creator, all we have to do is to identify His products and multiply them.
Just as was the case with penicillin.
This book by Ralph Moss is recommended reading for every doctor and in particular
every oncologist, preferably before his patient has read it.
(Reprint, Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients - February/March 1997 edition)