A Better Cancer Detox

By Dr. Gary Gautier

The conventional method of fighting and treating cancer is with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery and hormonal therapy, or a combination of them. This conventional/allopathic way of fighting cancer makes no sense to me because what the methodology suggests is that we take cancerous patient and poison them with chemical (80% use chemotherapy); radiate them with dangerous ionizing radiation (60% use radiation therapy or radiotherapy); cut them open and remove the malignant mass, tissue, and organs affected (67% use surgery); and starve/ kill the cancerous tumor cells growth by using steroid drugs to inhibit the hormones necessary to feed the cancer growth in a particular organ of origin (hormonal therapy). 

The problem is that by taking this viewpoint on the treatment and eradication of cancer cells and tumors, you are assuming a few very important things. The first is, why and how we got to this point to begin with- meaning that we are using chemicals (chemotherapy) to poison the tumor and tissue affected in our bodies, yet we do not realize that we are actually poisoning the very tissue/organ that needs to function normally. What about the rest of the body being afflicted with these poisons? Is it normal to poison the tissue/organ or the entire body to kill and rid ourselves of the cancer? Of course these chemicals and poisons tend to kill off the cancer in some instances, but at what cost? As you should see by now, chemicals and poisons are the very reason behind the cancer process itself in the first place. What’s more, you should be aware that cancer cells become resistant to the chemo process. 

Does radiation or radiotherapy help kill cancer cells? Yes, but at what cost? The radiation therapy process works by damaging the DNA of all cells, including cancer cells by bombarding them with protons, electrons, neutrons, or a photon or ion beam directed to the tumor or affected organ. This process breaks the DNA’s double strand to halt its life process or cancer cell multiplication. Ionizing radiation is dangerous to the body at any strength, especially at strengths used in the eradication of cancer cells, which are three times more difficult to kill than our normal tissues and organ cells. This is due to the lack of oxygen in cancerous tumor cells. This means we must kill-off three times more good/normal cells for every one cancer cell killed by using this method. The whole problem from the beginning was that we lacked the very oxygen needed to sustain life, creating the disease in the first place. 

Are we cutting out (surgery) an organ and tissue because it should not be in the body or because it got infected with a disease called cancer? So now do we no longer need this tissue/organ to carry out normal life functions? We still need a normally functioning organ and tissue; in fact, we need an even more strongly functioning body with all its parts to help fight cancer or any disease affecting us. So the thought of removing any God given organ (or any portion of it) because it was attacked by a disease is not only faulty reasoning, but perhaps even crazy! 

Manipulating our hormones with synthetic steroids (hormonal therapy) to kill cancer cells is very harmful to the body. This has and always will have disastrous effects for the treatment of any disease, especially cancer. Simply put, we need our hormones to be functioning at optimal levels to promote good health and well being, especially when afflicted by illness and disease. The truth of the matter is that we would not have such illness or disease if the body were not weakened by so many chemicals, over the counter and prescription drugs, poor choices in our food and drink, and an improper diet to begin with.

You must understand that you have no choice in the matter of cancer in the conventional medical setting. In short, you only have the options of treatment for cancer listed above, which are the same options that have been available for many years since the fight on cancer began.  

Although they have been marketed as more successful in curing or eradicating the disease, statistics have remained virtually the same as before the fight against cancer began. The medical profession generally considers any drug with less than 30% effectiveness to be no better than a placebo. In fact, it has been argued that the cure rate of conventional medicine for cancer is slightly lower than that of taking a placebo, or sugar pill. 

However, there seems to be some very skewed and inconsistent numbers floating around that just don’t add up regarding conventional medical treatments. It is a fact that their numbers are based on relative benefits rather than absolute benefits. This means that, hypothetically if a clinical cancer trial were to be conducted with conventional medicine (chemo/radiation) on 100 people, and two people were expected to get breast cancer, and only one actually contracts breast cancer, then the absolute benefit would be 1/100 or 1%; but with tricky statistics they will note that, two expected to get cancer, yet only one actually got it, so that is a ½ or 50% reduction in cancer, which is called a relative benefit of 50%; so instead of having a 1% cure rate for cancer, you now have a 50% cure rate based on relative benefits! What is also worth noting is that all 100 people had serious side effects and in reality, many may not live past this type of treatment because the very conventional treatment itself can kill them before the cancer does. 

So, when conventional medicine says that they have a higher cure rate, they will use the figures above as well as an arbitrary rule that anyone who lives past five years after being detected and treated with cancer is cured. However, the truth is that this duration of time was simply accomplished by earlier detection rate of cancer and not by actually curing or extending life through these conventional treatments. What other disease is considered cured if patients live five years after the detection? 

Also, people are not living longer than they did 100 years ago. In fact, this is a very bad example that people are living longer today than they did 100 years ago. The fact that babies died earlier as compared to today, and the statistics used this fact to make it seem that the lifespan of people have been extended when it really has not. They would take the lifespan of an infant who died at 1 year and add it to the lifespan of an adult who died at 90, averaging them out at 9 ½=45.5 as the average lifespan. 

Then they make the lifespan death of a person in this present time who dies at 70 and another at 90, averaging them out at 160/2=80 as the average lifespan, yet fail to figure in the life span of infants into their calculations. It should only include the death rates of older adults and not be mixed with that of infants because this would obviously make the calculations incorrect. In fact, the age of people living longer is relatively the same in 1900 as compared with 2000. The lifespan has increased only a few years in the last hundred years!

Just ask your doctor what the absolute benefits are, not what the relative benefits are for your cancer treatment. Conventional doctors do not have the right to even say what they think regarding this type of conventional care. If a doctor does say anything that does not conform to these strict conventional medical standards of care, they can actually lose their license to practice medicine and be fined $10,000, go to jail, and even find themselves without a job. 

I would like to express my thanks for some great information I have used in this section of “conventional/allopathic treatment options for cancer,” as explained in the movie “HEALING CANCER, from the inside out” ( , which has assisted me with some of the statistics, information and quotes in this section. 

“We can look forward to something like penicillin for cancer and I hope within the next decade.” Corneliys Rhoads, Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1953

“There is for the first time, a scent of victory in the air.” Readers digest article on Chemotherapy, 1957

“We are so close to a cure for cancer. We lack only the will and the kind of money that went into putting a man on the moon.” American Cancer Society, full page ad in the New York Times, 1969

“With a billion dollars for ten years, we could lick cancer.” Testimony to Congress by the director of the MD Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, 1969

“The American Public is being sold a nasty bill of goods.” Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner while serving on the national cancer advisory board, 1975

“It’s a bunch of sh–.” Dr. James Watson, while asked about the national cancer program, 1975

A landmark study, 14 years after the war on cancer began, showed that chemotherapy was somewhat effective in only 2-3% of all cancer patients but not much has changed since then, 1985. 

“…some 35 years of intense effort focused on improving treatment must be judged as a qualified failure.” John C. Bailar, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1986

“Cancer deaths can be cut in half by the year 2000.” Peter Greenwald, M.D., The National Cancer Institute, 1989

“For most of today’s common solid cancers, the ones that cause 90% of the cancer deaths each year, chemotherapy has been proven to do any good at all.” Urich Abel, M.D., University of Heidelberg, 1990

“Overall death rates from many common cancers remain stubbornly unchanged-or even higher-then when the war began.” E. Marshall, M.D., Science, 1991

“Evidence has steadily accrued that [cancer therapy] is essentially a failure.”

N.J. Temple, MD, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1991

“We have given it our best effort for decades: billions of dollars support, the best scientific talent available. It hasn’t paid off.” John C. Bailar, MD, Harvard University, 1997

“…long term survival for advanced cancer has barely budged since the 1970s.” Fortune Magazine, 2004

“We are going to lick cancer by the year 2015.” Congressman Benjamin Cardin, 2006

“Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy seldom produce a cure.” American Cancer Society, facts and figures, 2007

A cancer study noted, “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to a 5 year survival in Adult Malignancies” which came from every randomized, controlled clinical trial performed in the U.S. from 1990-2004 showing the absolute benefit for 5 year survival rates for cancer as follows: Bladder, kidneys, melanoma, multiple myeloma, pancreas, prostate, soft tissue sarcoma, uterus, unknown primary site=00.0% for 5 year survival. 

Other 5 year survival rates: Stomach=0.07%, colon=1.0%, breast=1.4%, head & neck=1.9%, lung=2.0%, rectum=3.4%, brain=3.7%, esophagus=4.9%, ovary=8.9%, non hodgkin’s lymphoma=10.5%, cervix=12.0%, (testis=37.7% and Hodgkin’s disease=40.3%). These last two cancers of testicular and Hodgkin’s disease represents only 2% of all cancers. Even at these percentages this still shows much less effectiveness than a placebo pill! Yet, The American Cancer Society said, “…caught early enough, breast cancer has cure rates approaching 100%.” 3-15-1987

“They lie like scoundrels.” Dean Burk, Ph.D., Regarding the American Cancer Society, Burk was employed by the National Cancer Institute for 34 years.

“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute & American Cancer Society are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, Ph.D.

Basically this is what you get from the FDA law that says, “ONLY A DRUG CAN CURE, PREVENT OR TREAT A DISEASE.” Meaning that natural substances cannot cure disease, because legally, only a drug can do that!”

If and when the immune system is impaired and a single cancer cell escapes detection, the cancer cell will increase and multiply with time. Note the growth of a single cancer cell below (Radiol Clin N. Am. 1989, 21:115-26):






5 YEAR- 1,048,576 CANCER CELLS

6 YEAR- 16,777,216 CANCER CELLS

7 YEAR-268,435,456 CANCER CELLS

8 YEAR- 4,294,967,296 CANCER CELLS

Most cancer is detected when you have 4 to 10 billion cancer cells (8 to 20 years), before even mammography detects cancer! On average, chances are that cancer cells and tumors have already spread to other parts of the body. Some cancer cells are resistant to chemotherapy and no conventional treatment can eliminate all of them. 

In 1993 the National Cancer Institute published a study of women who tested positive to breast cancer. They told half the women to stay on their typical American diet and had the other half change to a plant-based diet. After 4 years, 40% of the women who stayed with their typical American diet had recurring breast cancer, however not a single woman had a recurrence on a plant based diet!” 

Throughout history, the percentage of calories in terms of with whole plant foods was 95% of our diet, whereas today whole plant foods are just 7% of our diet. Equally alarming is that, historically, calories from animal foods were 5% and refined foods are 0%. However, today we have 42% of our calories coming from animal foods and 51% from refined foods. What’s wrong with this picture? We need to urgently go back to the past high amounts of plant-based diet, low amounts of animal foods and relatively no refined foods!

Cancer recurrence was reduced by 300% by plant based diet in stage 3 colon cancer!

“The more vegetables consumed, the longer the patients lived.” JAMA, 2007 Aug 15; 298(7): 754-64

“I look at cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, increased blood pressure or obesity for that matter…” Julian Whitaker, M.D. What Dr. Whitaker means is that all of these diseases are all one and the same. They are all caused for the very same reasons repeatedly described in this book.

I, Dr. Gary Gautier, personally worked professionally in the 80s with Nick Delgado, Director of Prevention Medical, who was an associate and researcher of Nathan Pritkin-a pioneer in research showing that you can reverse heart disease by eating a plant based diet. Actually, after 20 years of doubt and skepticism on the part of others regarding his research with plant-based diets. Pritkin actually willed his body to autopsy upon his passing and stipulated that the result of his health be published in a medical journal. The results are in the New England Journal of Medicine (July 4, 1985) and will plainly show that his arteries were as clean of those as a teenager. 

I had seen this program work very effectively, first hand, inside the clinic in the 1980s, which was confirmed by diagnostic testing time after time with hundreds of our patients. Actually, statistics show that untreated cancer patients actually live longer than the conventionally treated cancer patients with a high quality of life, according to many doctors and backed up by some studies. They are actually better off not accepting the treatment and switching to a natural plant based diet. Conventional medicine may give you 2 or 3 months more of life without the quality of life you would prefer. Treating patients with conventional medicine comes with a hefty price tag, as each patient, due to the help of early detection, can now generate up to $500,000.00 (per patient) in bills before dying. So it is really profits (not proven medical benefits) that are behind conventional cancer treatments. 

Excerpt from “Heal Thyself Optimum Health Forever”

Visit “The Keys to Cancer” for Information on Reversing Cancer Naturally

Leave a Reply

Cancer Guide

Cancer Research


Most Popular