The Cancer Files A Biochemist’s Story – How the Answer to Cancer was Suppressed

£18.00

Renee Henry was diagnosed with cancer in 1986 when she was thirty-five. The Cancer Files is more than the story of her quest to overcome illness, it is the amazing story of how Renee, through her research as a biochemist, discovered the mechanism of cancer. As a biochemist, Renee soon realised she was being given conflicting evidence by Doctors and finally turned her back on orthodox treatment, choosing instead to complete an alternative therapy for cancer, which made more scientific sense to her than orthodox methods.

Following her recovery, Renee went on to thoroughly research the alternative therapies and using her own funds under a Charitable Trust, conducted a small-scale clinical trial to test her theory of cancer, which she published in a scientific journal in 1989. Her Member of Parliament in 1997 tried unsuccessfully to table questions in the UK Parliament regarding the secrecy surrounding the author’s mechanism of cancer.

The backlash that the author experienced due to her research was so formidable that her manuscript for this book remained on her bookshelf for twenty years, until for the first time Renee has been persuaded to tell her story and how she found the mechanism for cancer, which reveals a specific biochemistry and psychology linked to an evolutionary primitive survival method.

As an insider on the alternative movement since 1986, Renee gives some insights into the hitherto unknown background of the history of alternative medicine and the battle with orthodox policy in cancer treatment.

SKU: ISBN 978-0-9529567-5-4 Category:

Description

“Renee Henry (a scientist) encountered the Power of the Pharmaceutical conglomerates and the subservient world of medical orthodoxy. The massive and globally profitable world of the ”Drug and counter drug” would in no way allow competition from the simple and direct path of Alternative Medicine. The cost in human life was irrelevant. Renee Henry also discovered to her cost that there was no such “commodity” as the Right of the Individual, professional impartiality, much less integrity, and no journalistic freedom, as she found Government Agencies, and the Medical Establishment, blocking her path. Moreover, she now risked following the path of those who for decades, had gone before, and had been discredited and destroyed personally and professionaly. We have depicted the structures of money Power, the vital “life blood” of the global Power Brokers, as a vast inverted “cone” spinning in pecarious, centrifugal equilibrium. The Trans-national Corporations they control in a profit-driven struggle for survival, committed to the self-generating drive for expansion – Growth – at whatever the cost. This is essentially what Renee Henry sought to challenge and we therefore decided to publish her record, such is its importance to justice and the long-term well-being of mankind.” – On Target Magazine – Intelligence Publications UK

CONTENTS

Introduction

PART 1 MY JOURNEY – THE CANCER YEARS

Cinderella and Prince Charming; The Awakening; The Magic Roundabout; White lace and Promises; The Search; Stopping my World; Battles and Dreams; Down and Out in Beverly Hills; A Near Death Experience; A Bridge too Far; Poems and Flowers; A Pilgrims Progress; A Cycle of Eternal Return to Greece; “Off with Her Head!” Closed Minds; How the Mind Works; Emotional Scales.

PART 2 – THE AUTHOR’S RESEARCH – THE CANCER FILES

The Cancer Syndicate; AIDS; Alternative Therapies for Cancer and Chronic Disease;The Gerson Therapy; Laetrile – B17; Hoxsey; William Kelley; Linus Pauling and Ewan Cameron – Vitamin C; Other Alternative Therapies; Immune Therapies; Coley’s Toxins; Dr. Josef Issels;The Relationship of the Mind to Illness and Cancer; Cancer an Evolutionary Throwback; Cancer and The Electromagnetic Spectrum; Past Life Memories; Contemporary Politics of Cancer.

467 pages

Introduction to The Cancer Files

Cancer is a tragic problem. $13.5 billion is now spent on research each year, and this is on top of vast investment over the past 30 years. But is cancer being cured? No. Mortality “has barely changed since 1971” wrote Professor Michael Baum in the July 2000 issue of ‘Prospect’: “About one in four people in Britain now die of cancer. The incidence of most cancers is increasing”. [Editor’s update note: 1 in 2 or 50% of the population will develop cancer.The source: BBC Radio 4 (UK) 07.06.2019 ‘More or Less – Investigating Numbers.’]

Why so little success? According to Professor Baum there are the villains of the “thought police” at work inside the medical profession. Baum should know, he is an emeritus professor of surgery at UCL. The problem however is much deeper in my experience than anyone could imagine.

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1986, my world suddenly collapsed. Cancer is a word that strikes fear into the hearts of anyone who has been given this diagnosis. My father died of bowel cancer in 1985 and I witnessed his traumatic and painful last months, feeling helpless to do anything.

I had two young children when I was diagnosed, one just 12 months and the other 4 years old. Like many newly diagnosed patients I was rushed by my oncologist to have orthodox treatment. It’s rather like an express train you board and once on, the thing goes so fast there is no point to disembark or think about the road you are travelling along. After the initial shock I found myself boarding the train with thousands of others and following millions who had boarded that train before. It did not occur to me to ask how many came back, from the ‘holocaust’- the cancer survival rates. For a time medical advice was followed as my gospel – surely they knew what they were talking about. Looking back I feel my vulnerability was taken advantage of – how I ever (as a Biochemist) let them convince me to undergo radiation is still something I kick myself over. The risk of damage to DNA is high and there is a risk that even after 20 years the radiation itself could cause cancer, apart from the serious side effects. The smiling Pollyanna smiles and assurances that: “everything will be alright, just close your eyes and you will get through it” are soothing words you want to believe.

One patient described a familiar experience: “Basically, I was in shock from the diagnosis. I was sitting there, with the doctor saying that this treatment was the best available and that it was actually a matter of life or death that I received it. My husband was sitting next to me, telling me that I needed to go along with it. I kind of went into a trance and although something didn’t feel quite right, I found myself nodding to chemotherapy”. A lot of cancer patients report that although they have an uncomfortable gut feeling that there must somehow be a better way forward, they still find themselves returning to their oncologist for more of the same. Undoubtedly there is a hereditary submissive attitude to the medical orthodoxy and its archetypal symbolism – the white coat, the stethoscope, the years of knowledge represented in those framed diplomas and the comforting feeling that this expert is going to look after you, where life has not. No doubt there are thousands of doctors who have their patients’ best interests to heart, but under the various medical bodies that supervise the profession they are limited to policy, when it comes to treating cancer. It is the small print of policy that as a newly diagnosed cancer patient you are not informed of.

The medical profession and cancer charities quote their cure statistics, but the statistics are very open to manipulation or “massaging”. If you survive cancer for five years you are counted statistically as a cure. Die in year six and you are still statistically cured. Further if you die from the effects of toxic chemotherapy such as heart problems or kidney problems this is not factored into the cure statistics.

In 1940, according to Prof. Hardin B. Jones at the University of California, Berkeley: “Through re-definition of terms, various questionable grades of malignancy were classed as ‘cancer’. After that date, the proportion of cancer cures having ‘normal’ life expectancy increased rapidly, corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnosis included”.

Michael Gearin-Tosh – a cancer survivor using an alternative method, who wrote Living Proof [1], recounted in The Times newspaper [2] how he received a number of letters from GPs and quoted Dr Mollie Hunton:

“ I have recently retired from the NHS and the sort of experiences you describe (in Living Proof ) were one of the factors that encouraged me to retire early…The last patient I had with myeloma” (cancer of the bone marrow) “took ages to diagnose, because she complained of pain in her ankle and, as a GP, I had to refer her to a consultant for a scan and a succession of junior doctors missed it. When it was finally diagnosed, she had repeated courses of chemotherapy over which I had no control, as she never saw me, only the haematologist. I got to see her only in the last stage of her illness when she kept getting repeated bronchitis. The steroids she was on not only lowered her immune system but collapsed her vertebrae so that her spine curved and her chin was on her chest and she could not breathe. She really died of respiratory failure due to her curvature of the spine, due to her steroid treatment, but I signed her death certificate ‘myeloma’. It made me wonder at the time how often the true cause of death is recorded, i.e. the treatment not the underlying illness. Before she died, I realised what was going on and wrestled with my conscience about what I would put on the death certificate, but I did not have the courage to put the real cause of death on it. I don’t know if the haematologists audit the long-term outcome of their treatment in this manner, i.e. to find the true cause of death. If they do, I would be surprised. I get the impression that they have their meetings about how they feel each stage should be treated, but I am not sure that the outcomes are recorded honestly”.

The interesting thing is that the GP was in fear of her own profession and did not have “the courage” to confront it and probably what she recognised would be formidable consequences to her employment or even career.

As I have come to realise in my own story, truth is a lonely path as one suffers loss of employment, loss of access to justice, loss of fair trial – Article 6 and constant harassment over Article 9 & 10 of Human Rights law as one is hounded.

Article 6, the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself. The right to a fair trial is absolute and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. The right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

And because my research particularly in the Theatre Earth series included discussion of certain religions Article 9 was constantly violated:

Article 9 guarantees that you can think what you want and can hold any religious or non-religious belief that you wish. It therefore protects religious belief and the beliefs of atheists, agnostics and those that are indifferent to religion, alike. You cannot be forced to follow or practice a particular religion and cannot be prevented from changing your religion. You are also protected from indoctrination by the State. This part of Article 9 is an absolute right and can never be interfered with.

As I was to discover British courts do not uphold these basic rights, where they are trampled under foot by barristers and judges who turn a blind eye. For the sake of this research inclusive of my other books, my family and myself suffered many Human Rights violations in Britain over a period of twenty-five years, most of which occurred after The Human Rights Act of 1998 was passed into law and even astoundingly many were contravened in actual courts of law! If anyone finds that statement too unbelievable I might add I have recorded and archived all evidence to prove that.

After a partial gruelling bout of radiation, which later I was to totally regret having suffered personal injury through it, a single moment in a hospital, whilst I waited for the first dose of chemotherapy, stopped me in my tracks and opened my eyes wide, as if from sleep. I disembarked from the express train and metaphorically wandered off, into the meadows full of life and flowers and where among nature many years later I would see very clearly how cancer develops.

And so it was whilst waiting for the first chemotherapy session, I sat next to a woman who was waiting for her chemotherapy. She looked tired, grey and her eyes were the familiar sad expressionless eyes of cancer patients. She explained that like me she had breast cancer a few years ago, she had surgery including lymph node removal, radiation and then a course of chemotherapy. But then the cancer had returned and she had her ovaries removed and was now back for more chemotherapy. Why, if they had “got it all” to use the so familiar phrase, was she back?

After hearing that I went straight to the hospital toilet and threw up. I felt I was in some casino game, where luck decided who wins and who loses. As I composed myself I looked in the mirror as if to face the truth – for one can never lie to oneself. I simply said: “this doesn’t work, how many more bits will they have to remove and how many more courses of chemotherapy will I have to take, before they tell me it’s no use?” I turned on my heel and walked straight out of the hospital and didn’t go back. In 1986, this was an unusual action for anyone to take, where it was unheard of to question orthodox treatment. As a Biochemist trained in orthodox scientific methods and research, it is even more unusual that I turned my back on years of indoctrination: the idea however of pumping my body full of toxic chemicals seemed to make no scientific sense, but more a desperate throw of dice. As Einstein remarked “God doesn’t play dice”.

Thus started my journey, where my first task was to find out everything I could about cancer and alternative treatments. Back in 1986 and long before Michael Gearin-Tosh developed cancer this was an age where information was hard to come by, with no Internet. I engaged in a great search in London from reflexologists, to homeopaths, to herbalists, to spiritualists, to acupuncturists and even walking lines with Buddhist priests in a temple in Wimbledon. It is perhaps poignant that in the dark stillness of the temple as we walked forward on an exact line, the bell would ring and we would walk backwards on an exact line, until the bell rang again, then repeating this action for what seemed hours. I have no idea to this day what the priests did this exercise for, since I just walked in and joined in and no one objected. However a thought arose in my head, that it was easier to walk forwards in life than to walk backwards and yet if I did not go backwards on an exact line, I could not go forwards. It is strange how one comes to these spiritual epiphanies, but it was the start of a spiritual journey, to find out ‘who’ I was and it would therefore be necessary to go back.

The immediate and pressing problem however was the body and the medical condition. As a Biochemist, I was searching for a therapy that would make sense to my scientific mind, but I was also looking for more – quite what in fact that more was, I did not know, but I knew there was more to this illness than just malfunctioning of cells. Finally I discovered the Gerson Therapy and for two years completed the arduous nutritional programme.

During that time I read a great deal, researched endless mechanisms of the mind and body and later set up a charity – Karnak and undertook a limited clinical study with cancer patients finally formulating a mechanism for cancer, which involved mind and body. Thirty years down the line and still the medical profession can’t accept a mechanism of mind and body and I doubt whether the role of the Spirit will ever be accepted. If it won’t go into a test tube then you can’t test it, is the mentality I’m afraid.

In 1989 I published the research study on a proposed mechanism for cancer in the journal Complementary Medical Research [3]. The paper was entitled ‘A Theory for Cancer, using the Gerson Therapy in conjunction with psychological counselling’ [Appendix 1]. Sheila McLean a nurse specialising in the Gerson Therapy co-authored the paper with me. The mechanism proposed, linked a specific biochemistry of cancer to a specific psychology.

Perhaps the information on the politics of cancer will come as a shock to you as the data did to me 24 years ago. In 1986 I was told by an alternative (homeopathic) doctor: “The only thing standing between cancer and a potential cure is the profit the drugs industry stands to make by keeping people sick”. As an orthodox trained scientist – a biochemist, it was in 1986 very difficult to accept that statement, or even realise the depth of what was meant. It soon became apparent however that doctors who treated cancer patients with alternative methods were put in prison, discredited, invariably harassed, swamped with tax problems and even had their wives and families taken from their homes. It painfully dawned on me in 1986 that money and profit for blue chip pharmaceutical companies was at the root of all the suppression. Governments are dependent on these companies to provide jobs, pay taxes and also pay dividends, which in turn pay things like pension funds. A dog chasing its tail in a revolving round of deception is only the first barrier in crossing the abyss. The lie is that with just a little more money and investment, they can crack cancer. I had a £400 donation to the Karnak Charitable Trust and did it on that, although my personal financial contribution to Karnak was more than a hundred times that figure, if not more if you factor in the loss of employment through attacks over my research and books.

As a Biochemist I was more fortunate than the lay person, who asks advice on alternative therapies: such questions are usually met by the medical profession with the stock answer that alternative therapies have no indication by way of research or trials that they work. The same might be said of orthodox methods, where one person may survive and another succumbs. Generally doctors and Scientists are indoctrinated into their profession at University and I can assure you alternative methods are not on the curriculum. Doctors only practise what they have been taught at medical school and no doubt they were told that alternative medicine was quackery. When I mentioned to an oncologist that I was going to do the Gerson Therapy, he fairly frothed at the mouth and predicted I would die. As a Biochemist I could make my own decisions, but what of the layperson who undoubtedly would find such a response intimidating? The truth that doctors should be giving, is that many people have survived using alternative methods, but as a doctor he cannot recommend such an approach as he is governed legally by a medical body – The British Medical Association and rigid policy laid down by that association and the main Cancer Charities, which align with government policy. The position is the same in virtually all countries. Is the policy correct? Well that was the question I was left to decide in my own journey. There is also no doubt I discovered that the patient undergoing orthodox treatment, is subject to a regime diametrically opposed to that which is needed for survival and therefore I concluded the policy was wrong.

I never had any intention to publish this book and my biography of the ‘cancer years,’ which had sat on my bookshelf as a manuscript for twenty years along with the research material in my notes and files, which outlined the entire mechanism of cancer. When I left the field of cancer in 1997, I decided it was an insane battlefield and I certainly had had enough of it. In order to save your own sanity, you have to walk away, just tiptoe through the battlefield of the two opposing sides orthodox and alternative and ride on out as fast as you can! I had also suffered violations of Human Rights even in Courts of Law for twenty-four years because of the research and eventually could not withstand the forces. There is a saying that the nail that sticks up, will be hammered down and I can assure you that if you stick your head above the ever- watchful radar scanner, you will be attacked. – It is a ferocious attack and proves pretty formidable barriers in crossing the abyss.

The fact that ordinary people also threatened my employment and my children’s education and were even willing to lie in courts was particularly repugnant reminding one of how individuals like this keep all Kafkaesque states in power. Kafkaesque can also describe an intentional distortion of reality by powerful but anonymous bureaucrats. Lack of evidence is treated as a pesky inconvenience, to be circumvented by such Kafkaesque means as depositing unproven allegations into sealed files. Another definition would be an existentialist state of ever-elusive freedom while existing under immitigable control, characterized by surreal distortion and a sense of impending danger. The Kafkaesque terror of the endless interrogations, false trials – and threats to employment, in some nightmarish fashion my family experienced all of this. One could only compare the justice system in England to Stalinist Czechoslovakia – where outcome is decided irrespective of what evidence you provide and before the case starts. Who would not leave it all behind?

Then a friend Colonel Barry Turner years later, sent me a book by Michael Gearin-Tosh entitled ‘Living Proof – A Medical Mutiny’ [1] and some newspaper clippings from The Sunday Times News Review [4]. Michael was an Oxford don in Literature and was diagnosed with myeloma (bone cancer) in 1994, a year after I had fled to Greece, and had been told that without orthodox treatment he would die, but with it he could expect to live from anywhere between 6 months and 3 years. Michael had opted out of orthodox treatment and completed the Gerson Therapy and 8 years later was still alive. Good for him! I thought, not being tempted to read his account or the newspaper clippings, less I be dragged down the black abyss again; I popped the book on my bookshelves next to my aging manuscript and the clippings were filed away in the ‘Cancer Files’. I certainly had no desire to pull down my biography of the ‘cancer years’ and go over the painful account: neither was there any desire to rattle the research in front of media, politicians or oncologists – I had done that in 1997. In fact I was fairly jaw-hung, when I asked one oncologist to read my research paper, he replied: “If I read what you are saying, I might have to question what I am doing and I am not prepared to do that”. Ostrich doesn’t describe it! Several doctors had described the research as “brilliant” and had urged me to make the research known – but by that time I was exhausted with the whole battle.

I noted however that Gearin-Tosh’s survival had set off the ‘thought police,’ where it was argued that he was no more than an exception. “Nearly every week, someone wins the lottery jackpot, but many millions do not,” wrote a consultant haematologist (Dr Andrew Will) in The Sunday Times: “Gearin-Tosh is not just lucky. He is very lucky indeed”. As Gearin-Tosh noted: “classify someone as lucky or an exception to the rules, and you do not have to worry if the rules are wrong”. But hadn’t I questioned orthodox cancer treatment as a lottery of luck?

Gearin-Tosh wrote Living Proof, at the suggestion of Sir James Gowans FRS. A research professor of the Royal Society, Sir James was also secretary of the Medical Research Council in Britain for 10 years. He is a pioneer of immunology and Gearin-Tosh’s cancer was one of the immune system. Sir James whilst believing that exceptions should be studied and not dismissed, evidently is totally unaware of the forces that are thrown at you when you try to do that. According to Professor Baum, “the ear against cancer is bogged down by undeclared special interest, petty mindedness, political quick fixes and slavish adherence to out-dated paradigms”. Indeed new thought and paradigms as I was to discover, are considered heretical rather than a breakthrough.

Then in 2005, I read an obituary for Michael in a national newspaper. I wondered what psychological event had triggered his demise – after all he had survived for 10 years – far beyond his prognosis. Even so I resisted pulling down Michael’s biography. Don’t go back into that battle I thought. Then in 2008 I met a young woman whose husband had died of cancer – naso-pharyngeal – or cancer of the linings of the nose and back of throat. I asked her whether anything had happened to her husband’s nose in the 12-18 months prior to diagnosis. She thought for a moment and then said “Oh well he had a bad fall on it”. There was the trigger right there. The fall did not cause cancer but triggered a subconscious memory of a past significant loss: it was a “key in”. The accident with the nose was perceived as a loss in the subconscious primitive mind, but not recognised as such by the conscious analytical mind. The fall was not causative of cancer only a psychological trigger, and so I asked her whether she could think of any other earlier incident in his life, which had involved the nose. She thought for a moment and then told me his Chinese grandmother used to waft opium under his nose as a baby to get him to go to sleep. The husband died after gruelling rounds of radiation and chemotherapy and thus one will never know what command phrases of the grandmother, were locked into his subconscious mind during these opium incidents. I will expand on this in the section entitled The Mind in Cancer. The battlefield between orthodox and complementary medicine is fierce enough when it involves the body, but I can assure you that once you approach the mind in cancer, the psychotics crawl out of the proverbial woodwork to attack you!

After that a nagging question came into mind, as to whether if I had published a book, put down what I knew, whether the husband might if he had read it, still be here today – would Michael Gearin-Tosh be here today? I resisted the nagging question, telling myself I had published a scientific study, tried to disseminate it, and virtually bankrupted myself by bankrolling the research. I had finally gained the help of my MP the late Tim Rathbone who in 1997 agreed to Table Questions in The House of Commons UK Parliament, based upon the Ancient Right of Petition, which had taken a month to research and complete [Appendix 2]. When that was predictably scuttled as one might expect in Britain’s laughable ruse of democracy and “transparent government” – the research was sent through the so-called lines of “open government” to the major charities who fund cancer research in the UK including the Medical Research Council and the National Health Executive who direct policy. Despite then, the Human Rights Act was about to materialise the following year, evidently Article 21 – The Right to Democracy (everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country) and Article 29 (Responsibility) had yet to impinge on the British government. They were still with courts of law fighting Article 10 – free expression of ideas..

In 2009, following another incident such as the one with the husband I recounted, a woman said to me: “Oh I just wish we could have known about you and your research”. I eventually pulled down Michael’s book from my shelf and read it, along with the newspaper cuttings from 2002. Turning to the clippings and a spread in The Sunday Times [2] I noted a quarter page was allocated to letters from readers in response to the previous week’s coverage of Michael’s story entitled ‘Readers ask: How dare he challenge the doctors?’ I sighed as I read them – same old scene I thought nothing in this field changes as I remembered the gamut of anger and hostility I ran in 1986..

A few up-dates and contemporary notes have been made but the basic research and theory for cancer is the same as when I published the research paper and compiled an initial manuscript and The Working Report into Cancer in 1989.

© Renee Henry all Rights Reserved

Amazon Documentaries ‘push fake cancer cures’

Amazon Documentaries Push Fake Cures
Amazon Documentaries Push Fake Cures

As you will note the ‘thought police’ (“cancer specialists” as political bodies) are still using the same strategy in 2019, 19 years after The Times article in 2000. As the following complaint to New Scientist Magazine [06.01.2014] illustrates, these so-called “specialists” and media are not opposed to ‘lifting’ alternative research ideas and using them without acknowledgement, for profit and power.

 

The Letter to the New Scientist Legal Department

The Legal Department
New Scientist
Lacon House
84 Theobald’s Road
London
WC1X 8NS

06.01.2014

Dear Sir/Madam

Some years ago I forwarded to New Scientist a proposal for an article entitled ‘Who Killed the Minoans.’ I received no reply but in the next issue of the magazine an article appeared entitled ‘Who Killed the Minoans’ and covered science on wave action [male authorship naturally]. The article used an image of an icon that I had used in my own research, which incidentally refuted the tsunami/volcanic action theory, based on personal first hand research of the Knossos archaeological site and extensive study of Sir Arthur Evans reports in The School of Athens Journals. Your article made no attempt to explain the icon and it was evidently just ‘lifted’ for decoration. The scientists had evidently never set foot on the Knossos site or bothered to look at Evans research and direct first hand observations/evidence of the site, which would have course not been covered by any grant. Of course no grant would have been available to solve ‘The Grand Design’ or indeed the thousands of hours of research searching through the science citation index in respect of historical cancer research. Indeed after 20 grant allocating bodies, turned me down for funding, I had to fund the entire research programme myself and the small scale clinical trial undertaken under the umbrella of the Karnak Trust, which published the research.

Sometime later I proposed another article entitled ‘The Grand Design’ based on original research covering the geometry of space-time and which for the first time solved Einstein’s singularity. I had sent the research in the form of volume three of my book series [Theatre Earth Who Pulls the Strings?] to the Niels Bohr Institute and the Max Planck Institute and also sent the proposed article to New Scientist along with volume three of my book series published on 15.02.2005. Imagine my [non] surprise when an article of the title appeared three years later [14.06.2008] in New Scientist [Grand Designs – Symmetry’s Hidden Depths] covering the gist of my research and even repeating Fig. 67 page 268 of my book [Vol. 3 – Theatre Earth Who Pulls the Strings?]. Authorship of the article was naturally male, professorial, orthodoxy [Professor Marcus du Sautoy] at Oxford. The article naturally missed out the vital point of my research, to comply with political correctness and the rejection of views that might uncomfortably challenge the entrenched orthodox viewpoint both in science and religion [Revelation 21:4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Also Isaiah 25:8]. It seems the dispute is between two viewpoints of ‘HE’ [the patriarchal religions] or ‘SHE’ [matriarchal] and what is exactly meant by ‘no more death’ in those two viewpoints. As I note from events described here only ‘HE’ is allowed a platform to speak. Was it not Einstein who noted: “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Going back to 1989 I forwarded to you my published and peer reviewed research paper covering the mechanism of cancer. I proposed an article whereby the mechanism would be put forward allowing other scientists to access this completely new way of thinking about cancer. I believe the mortality rates were then one in four. You failed to cover the research, for reasons I can guess at and the incidence of cancer is fast rising to one in two.

The reason I am writing to you is that in 1989 I included a reference to Coley’s toxins in my research report [1989], which I later included in the 2005 publication of my book The Cancer Files. I note that the last issue of New Scientist has made reference to the work of Coley but failed to explain it, which however I fully proposed the mechanism for in my own research. Coley’s work is way off the academic wavelength of orthodox thought and indeed it took many months of hard research [and associative costs] for me to unearth this unknown historical research. This article in New Scientist undoubtedly relied on my research, with no acknowledgement made. Is it likely that new research at Oxford looking at immunotherapy in cancer will emerge in the future from my research, without acknowledgement of source by them or yourselves? I think one has to protect one’s intellectual property in support of the origin and history of ideas, in these days of male egotism, particularly evident in the Royal Society.

I don’t expect you to cover my research, or the mechanism of cancer I proposed, but I have taken the opportunity now to forward my book The Cancer Files – [A Biochemist’s Story: How the answer to cancer was suppressed] which covers the mechanism, such that it is very clear that the mechanism and ideas that are expressed in that semi-personal account are covered by intellectual copyright as dated by publication of the book and first dated in my research paper referred to in Appendix 1 of the book (1989). I do not wish to have my ideas and research slowly whittled off which appears to be the modus operandi. There is of course a long history of women scientists having their work taken over by those with an eye on personal acknowledgement and glory. There is also a long history of scientists who had their research deemed unacceptable to the orthodoxy of the time going back to Galileo.

Cancer is not a disease it is a primitive survival mechanism based on loss. I am 99% sure it’s right, because it is simple and it has the hand of God on it; as do all the best kept secrets of Nature’s closet. Original research takes years of deep thought and the associative costs and it is morally wrong to take over that research and the ideas, thus avoiding the long and painful years of dedication to the research and the associative costs. It costs money to think! It costs money to hold a view deemed unacceptable by the establishment as many of the scientists covered in The Cancer Files found out when they lost jobs, were forced into court proceedings, were harassed and were subject to many other methods of silencing them.

Yours sincerely

R. Henry Bsc

Copyright R. Henry

Letter From The Rathbone Esq, M.P.

Letter from Tim Rathbone Esq, M.P. January 1997
Letter from Tim Rathbone Esq, M.P. January 1997

Letter From The Cabinet Office

Letter from the Cabinet Office February 1997
Letter from the Cabinet Office February 1997

Working Report On Cancer: Artists Impression

Working Report On Cancer: Artists Impression
Working Report On Cancer: Artists Impression

How Cancer Works

Also available from good book stores.

Additional information

Weight 666 kg

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review.