Interviewer: Robert, what are you thoughts on traditional cancer therapies? We talked a lot about cancer and a lot about it here at the Health Freedom Expo. What are your thoughts on the traditional chemo radiation surgery?
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah. That they're called "traditional" is a sad state of affairs, of course. But it's a young culture in the west and tradition doesn't go back very far, so that which is new becomes traditional. Of course, this is since WWII. Mustard gas is converted. We go into Rockefeller and Carnegie inspired foundations that largely work toward a medical monopoly of petrochemicals. And the idea that cancer is just an aberrant luck of the draw - sorry, bad luck, your genes are bad. The only thing we can do to save you is try to well, not try to kill you. But we might, in the process of trying to kill the cancers that are rapidly reproducing cells.
And so it is a game of chemo-therapeutic chicken. Who survives, right? And very often, perhaps maybe all of the time in traditional oncology in the west, the patients don't die of cancer but they die of the treatment of that cancer. Now again, I have many physicians on my program and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez (ph) is one of my favorites out of New York. He's a physician, a medical doctor who takes care of the worst cancers. Those that have been given up, often, by modern medicine and oncology. Pancreatic cancer. Very famous people have died of pancreatic cancer going through traditional therapies and procedures.
And he has helped them without chemotherapy, without radiation, without even surgery. And many of those patients are alive 20, 25 or more years later. What's the difference? Well, the idea is to understand, fundamentally, that cancer is not evidence of a deficiency of chemotherapy or radiation or surgical intervention. But if you don't understand that, it's the idea that if you're a hammer everything looks like a nail. If your tool is chemotherapy you're going to find an excuse to use it. If you're a surgeon, you've got to do surgery or you're not getting paid.
So the idea that we go to somebody that poisons us to death to get us back to life, it's absurd on its face. Now, I've never argued in terms of banning of these things. Although it could be argued that that would be an ethical thing to do. To ban chemotherapy. But my point is that we must allow for the free flow of information and get the government out of medicine. End the med, I say. And that's the medical monopoly.
At that point, then, all these ideas will bubble and compete around in the arena of ideas, and efficacy will largely be the result of not a government study or government limitation or medical monopoly limitation. But the fact is, you're going to find out there are a lot of Nick Gonzalez's out there quietly trying to do what they do. Or maybe they're not because they're afraid they'll lose their license; they'll be thrown out of their profession.
But all of those things would naturally occur. The people that are surviving would talk and all of the other people with cancer would say, "Hey, how did you do it?" And they would be flooding these doctors that are utilizing holistic techniques and detoxification and rebuilding supplementally, et cetera.
At that point we have out-created, in a good way, the limitation of the medical monopoly and modern oncology which as a tradition it's a poor tradition. If you want to survive or a loved one will survive, many of the doctors I've talked about over the years who have been converted acknowledged to me, and some I know directly, doctors that would not do for their own family, when they're diagnosed with cancer, the very things they would do for you as a patient. In other words, they would not do chemotherapy radiation. Surgery if necessary. But by and large, they would look holistically because they know how disastrous that intervention is.