Additional Titles








The Giant Sucking Sound in
Washington, D.C.

Is "The Giver" On Your Horizon?

Is The Chamber of Commerce an UN Front?











By Betty Freauf

October 26, 2008

A 1969 speaker at a Pediatric Conference in New York City said, “Cancer cures would be suppressed as a means of population control. We can cure almost every cancer right now. The information on this subject can be found in the Rockefeller Institute if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider this, if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.” So it was decided in order to save “Mother Earth” we must kill human beings or form relationships that can’t procreate. The decade of the sixties found us beginning to march toward Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen. 6:1 in the Bible speaks about the population explosion on planet earth. In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded his Population Council. In 1970 Republican President Richard Nixon appointed this same Rockefeller as chairman of the U.S. Commisssion on Population growth and the American Future. At the end of 1968 Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, University and Dr. Thomas Eisner of Cornell University launched the Zero Population Growth movement at Yale University. In 1968, Dr. Paul Ehrlich first published his hysterical book The Population Bomb, which became compulsory reading in most North American high schools and colleges.

So what gives? Maybe we should just follow the money because a group of professional researchers in the early 1970s had been charged with the grave responsibility of finding a means to stop the annual cancer slaughter. The lives of millions literally hung on the outcome of their work, which had been financed by grants and government subsidies. I described in one of my past articles, using material from the 1974 book World Without Cancer how Sloan-Kettering had found a cure but “pressures from above” urged it to drop the study on amygdalina aka as laetrile – apricot seeds available at Health Food Stores. Do they really work? I have one testimony that says it does and he religiously eats his laetrile.

In Tom Bethel’s 2005 book Politically Incorrect Guide to Science he says, “A Congressional Resolution declared in 1970 that the conquest of cancer was a national crusade to be accomplished by 1976.” Funds were to be made available both for a “massive program of cancer research” and for the “buildings and equipment with which to conduct the research.” Policymakers and scientists tended to assume that will power, optimism and taxpayers’ money was all it would take to achieve that scientific goal. The National Cancer Act became law in 1971 signed by President Richard Nixon. The National Cancer Institute budget was increased and scheduled to reach $800 million a year by 1976. In 2004, about 560,000 Americans died of cancer, with perhaps 1.25 million newly diagnosed cases. The budget of the National Cancer Institute had reached $5 billion and other federal agencies contributed another $2 billion, and about $1 billion came from major charities while the pharmaceuticals were spending $6 billion on cancer research and development.

Bethel goes on to say that cancer has remained impervious to every “breakthrough” and treatment hype. Journalists looked for exclusives and often viewed new treatment claims uncritically. Editors searched for front-page material. Biotech companies wanted to create the “buzz” that would encourage investors. And at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, any sign of progress was welcomed. Congressional appropriations were increased.

If the next president truly wants to find a way to reduce the deficit, he might start with this unconstitutional and fraudulent cancer research, which, if placed in the hands of the private sector exclusively would find that elusive cure tomorrow. Now I read in a10/24/2008 AP article that half of U.S. doctors are giving placebos and many of them are not honest with their patients and in Annie’s Mailbox on the same date the headline said a doctor drops a patient covered by Medicare because the government’s reimbursement is too low. Again, these problems suggest government involvement was the cause, not the solution.

In my Useful Idiot article, I told about John Stossel interviewing young people on ABC’s 20/20 aired on October 10, 2008. One question he asked was about Roe –vs- Wade and because I knew October was Cancer Awareness month, I felt it might be time to write another article.


In his 2003 communication with me, Dr. D.F. Joseph confirmed my suspicions about the abortion-breast cancer connection. He said, “Abortions being the cause of breast cancer have been America’s Best Kept Secret.” He reported cancer had almost doubled in the United States since Roe –vs- Wade was legalized in 1973. Of the 1.4 million abortions done, yearly, in the U.S. and accounting for the increased risk posed by abortions, researchers estimated the 800,000 first-time abortions performed annually would thus generate roughly 25,000 excess cases of breast cancer each year, as the first group of women exposed to legal abortions advanced in age. Given the margin of error, he said the researchers predicted that excess cases of breast cancer would be between 9,000 and 40,000 per year, due to the impact of induced abortions.

He said during a visit to the office of an oncologist (tumor and cancer specialist) he picked up one of the many brochures concerning breast cancer, hoping to read that induced abortions would be listed as one of the risks for breast cancer, but it wasn’t there. The brochure did mention more than three alcoholic drinks per week may increase the risk as well a certain foods. Dr. Joseph and other doctors have tried for years to convince doctors and the media about this risk. Studies have also been revealed to Congress but again, follow the money. Many Congress people from both parties are in bed with the abortion industry that donates large sums of money to them. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is a recipient of huge donations. So it is better that women and babies should die then to harm the abortion industry. Could that be considered a form of genocide?

Those behind the abortion industry talk about choice so wouldn’t you think they’d want it to be “informed choice” due to the everlasting consequences? The radical feminists who promoted Roe –vs- Wade came up with the clothes hanger scenario and declared women were dying; however, there were doctors before Roe –vs- Wade that were performing safe abortions. Initially the law allowed abortions in the first trimester but pro-lifers warned it would incrementally escalate but little did they ever dream it would get to the point of the barbaric partial birth abortions in the “best interests” of the mother’s health. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop said partial birth is “is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health.” And this is why the radical feminists hate John McCain’s choice of Vice President, Sarah Palin, because she made a “choice” not to abort her Downs Syndrome baby.

Because the feds have been targeting, threatening and arresting people such as doctors, government officials and distributors of medical marijuana which Californians approved, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming it is a state’s rights issue (10th amendment). (1) If this doesn’t go up in smoke, then abortion should also be a state’s rights issue. The liberals can’t have it both ways.

The culture of death is nothing new. In the Bible, we read about how pagan women were tossing their live babies into the furnace to serve the deity known as Molech. (Infanticide) Human life means nothing to the abortionists. You can read about Molech in Jeremiah 32.35. And Oregon voters passed “right to die” (euthanasia) legislation not once but twice and now other states are making inquiries.


Dr. Johnson sets forth these basics: Estrogen is produced in the ovaries that transform a young girl into a woman. When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first semester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer. In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous. When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. In plain English, these insulted traumatized cells have been hung out to dry. Scientists have known for years that any cells in the human body that have been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer. Carrying the baby to full term and mothers who breast feed their babies lower their risks.

I address this abortion issue in another article. I then received information from a reader who felt birth control pills were another problem because women from their teen years to menopause take thousands of pills to prevent pregnancy. Since the sixties “sexual revolution” young women often feel the pressure to have sex so they are taught in government schools sex education classes how to protect themselves. God has had a special design for women and when we break the rules, consequences follow. Dennis Rowan from who has a PhD in Reproductive Physiology says strokes and heart attacks in women were unheard of when he was a kid. I agree. He says we are warned about second-hand smoke but no one warns women about birth control pills. Again, follow the money. In the early 1990s the University of Vermont conducted a smoking survey on fourth graders funded through a $1,000,000 research grant from the National Cancer Institute. Sharon Hughes writes about the money involved in the abortion industry.

Pro-abort first lady Laura Bush was on FOX with Gretta Van Sustern on 10/8/2008 wearing a beautiful pink outfit as she was telling how she arranged to have the White House covered in pink lights at night because October was Cancer Awareness month. Black would be more appropriate for the culture of death. I understand this “pink ribbon project” which represents a “search for the cure” has raised about $500,000 this month but none of it will show women how to prevent cancer but the money is used to recruit and encourage women to have “free” mammograms.

In December 2006 an AP article noted breast cancer rates had dropped 7% in a year. Some doctors linked the decline to curtailed use of hormone therapy (estrogen) for menopausal symptoms. Then doctors recommend regular mammograms as the best way to detect cancer. SIXTY MINUTES ON 1/9/2005 had a program on how dogs can smell cancer. In a double blind study in England, dogs had a 41% success rate. One dog consistently went to a woman that was supposed to be cancer free. Upon further examination, cancer in the bladder was discovered. The dog even found another that had cancer that a doctor missed.

An 8/20/1999 news article in our local paper said sixty-seven Oregon prisoners who were earlier used as guinea pigs in radiation experiments were seeking class action lawsuit status. I do not know the outcome. The media didn’t follow up. One said the “rads” are cumulative and “rads” cause cancer.

The March 1992 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine reported the risk of recurrence significantly increased among women under 45 who chose adjuvant radiation. DNA damage from radiation therapy can initiate cancer that won’t manifest until 15-20 years after the treatment.

In his 1981 book Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women the author, Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, says the body’s immune system is so adversely affected by radiation and chemotherapy that in many cases it is not the cancer that kills the patient, but some minor infection that runs unchecked because the immune system cannot block it. In many instances, the orthodox treatment for cancer is worse than the disease itself. Award winning cancer investigator Ralph Moss says nine out of ten women with early stage breast cancer who limit their treatment to surgery will not have a recurrence.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

And last but not least, Mendelsohn also makes an interesting point that it is the female technicians who risk the dangerous radiation hazards that emanate from the infernal machines. Male doctors order x-rays and male radiologists read them but they carefully maintain a safe distance from the radiology rooms.


1 - 10/13/2008 New American

� 2008 Betty Freauf - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004 and joined the Constitutional Party.

Betty is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to
[email protected]









If the next president truly wants to find a way to reduce the deficit, he might start with this unconstitutional and fraudulent cancer research, which, if placed in the hands of the private sector exclusively would find that elusive cure tomorrow.