Excerpts - Winning the War on Cancer


The following excerpts from Winning the War on Cancer capture the essense of the Beljanski journey.

Case Closed

Killing the defendant is actually the best way for the government to close a case which would otherwise be impossible to win. Indeed, between the criminal case and the tax case, my father felt completely harassed, and his health rapidly spiraled downward.

Beljanski vs. France

It took us four years to get a decision, as the French government pulled every possible excuse, however poorly drafted, to delay the case. My father passed away in 1998—without a trial date ever set by the French judge—and we continued the case before the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of my mother. To this day, I am still shocked by the way the French government operated; in fact, I remain ashamed for the nation.

Eventually, in 2002, the long-awaited response came from the European Court of Human Rights. In a unanimous decision—Beljanski vs. France—the court recognized that France had no excuse for the numerous delays and for not giving my father his due day in court. We won.

Government Stifles Science

On October 9, 1996, exactly nine months after Mitterrand’s passing, the French S.W.A.T. team (in French the “GIGN”) showed up in Saint Prim at 6:00 a.m. with machine guns, dogs, and a helicopter circling the laboratory. The scene seemed surreal for this sleepy little town. My father was handcuffed unceremoniously while walls were checked for secret hiding places. All products, samples for analysis, laboratory notebooks, letters, and research papers were seized. A moving truck was brought in to carry away computers, copy machines, and all raw materials, without even bothering to make an inventory of what was being taken away. The operation "ISA 2" was classified top secret, and those guys did not belong to the justice system at all, but to the military. Go ask a machine gun to show its warrant!

Struggling To Uphold A Legacy

I realized that if I was going to carry on my father’s legacy and research program, it was important to establish a close network with all the doctors already familiar with his work. I had to meet them.

I decided I would rent a meeting room in a New York hotel and invite all of them to attend a “symposium” on Beljanski’s research. To get speakers, I called the first five names on Gérard’s list to introduce myself, and asked them if they would come to New York to lecture about my father’s work. The response was unbelievably enthusiastic. They all told me they had long been waiting for such an opportunity.

A Right To Health

It suddenly hit me: all the choices the flight attendant offered were mass-market products whose ingredients were easily sourced in quantity. Pao pereira was never going to be one of them.

How many bags of bark could a donkey carry? How many trips to the river could a donkey perform during one dry season? I had to accept that this was never going to become a large-scale production.

And if it was going to remain forever small, how would I ever make enough money to meet all the quality control requirements to produce the extracts, finance the research, and get the word out?

I was anticipating coming home with a renewed appreciation for hot running water, electricity, a decent mattress, and other wonders that define modern comfort. But, I couldn’t help wondering: what is the real price we pay for those luxuries?

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” states Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. My father's liberty and security, and then his right to live, were eventually taken away through the abuse of modern Western institutions. Is life much less safe in the unregulated jungles? Does the Western idea of “right to life” include the right to maintain life through universal access to healthcare? Does the security of the person include access to any medical treatment of one’s choice? What if the preferred treatment includes a dietary supplement made from a tree bark available only in small quantities, where universal access is just physically impossible? Is it a luxury, or a right?


While new life was being injected into Beljanski's discoveries in the U.S., closure was finally obtained in France. As noted previously, in 2002 a unanimous decision was reached by the European Court of Human Rights in the case Beljanski vs. France. We won, but it was a bittersweet victory after a protracted four-year battle. Surprisingly, however, it had not been a hard one to win from a legal point of view. From the beginning it had been clear that the French General Attorney had no case. That did not prevent him from delaying as long as the process would allow, making the trial as emotionally difficult and expensive for my family as he could. The arguments presented on behalf of the French government had been consistently and shockingly poor. I was relieved we had won, but as a French lawyer, I was profoundly ashamed by France’s public display of such intense mediocrity.

Emotional Healing: The Body/Mind Connection

My parents had devoted their lives to studying the effect of molecules on other molecules. In their home, either because of modesty or coldness, emotions were deemed “inappropriate.” Isn’t it ironic how our educational system is all about mathematics and literature, while so little is done to prepare our children for life's real challenges, which always revolve around the handling of strong emotions?

Despite my family’s disdain for everything not scientifically established, I have always been intuitively convinced that we are much more than a simple bunch of molecules: thus my interest in body-mind connection. This intuition of mine was reinforced by listening to cancer survivors’ stories. Their testimonials brought upbeat reports about their recovery once they started taking the extracts, but I was mostly interested in asking questions about their circumstances at the time of the occurrence of the disease. Those questions almost always opened the door to a story of personal dramas involving relatives, ranging from devastatingly painful losses to conflicts with toxic people.

“Toxic people” are the people who might resent your progress for any number of reasons. Falling short of controlling their own lives, they try to control yours. They will take pleasure in telling you, in more or less subtle ways, that you are not enough. They tell you these things until you give up and take the guilt message to heart, where it will slowly poison you.

Looking back, many long-term cancer survivors declared cancer as the silver lining that allowed them to reset their emotional counter and reinvent a healthier life for themselves.

I had a great interest in Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer’s approach to disease, and the link he proposed between specific emotions and the organs where cancer would subsequently arise.

Beljanski’s Discoveries

According to the American Cancer Society, the number of cancer cases around the world is expected to double by 2030. An aging population, combined with increased pollution, and global access to weapons of mass destruction in the form of pre-packaged foods and sugary drinks, have created the “perfect cancer storm.” Where shall we run for safety?

Mirko Beljanski’s extracts are not going to offer a global solution: definitively, there would not be enough raw material. But Beljanski offered the world a new vision of cancer that should open the door to new and exciting avenues of research for a young generation of scientists. Far ahead of his time, he looked for progressive and cumulative destabilization of DNA as the root cause of cancer while his peers were looking for mutations. That led him to create his own unique test of carcinogenicity: the Oncotest, able to measure the degree of DNA destabilization induced by certain products and materials. The test allowed him to jump from concept to reality and to make another breakthrough: finding in nature anticancer molecules that would be selective in their activity and toxic only to cancerous or pre-cancerous cells. The good news is that we now know that such molecules exist! They are non-toxic to healthy cells, selectively able to kill many kinds of cancer cells (including cancer stem cells) and they work in synergy with most chemotherapies.

The bad news is that this is not where pharmaceutical companies are investing their money. Whatever their differences, health care systems around the world are all plagued by ever-increasing costs and long waits at hospitals for expensive conventional treatment. Some systems work better than others in terms of reimbursements, accessibility, and coverage, but they are all straining under the pressure of spiraling cost and reduced access.

One would think that if there were evidence of a product or treatment that could begin to address these problems, it would be embraced by mainstream science and the politicians in charge of our future.

Think again.
With cancer being a multi-billion dollar per year business, it’s no surprise that pharmaceutical companies will protect their brands at all costs and decry natural solutions as quackery, even if this blanket rejection of natural treatments screams conflict of interest. The industry warns that if natural treatments are allowed to flourish, “Desperately ill patients clinging to false hope may refuse surgery or give up their medicine and die.” Meanwhile, the industry continues to treat only the symptoms—the consequences of the sickness and not the cause of sickness—while imposing ever higher prices on its products.

No Money In A Natural Cure

We do not want to go mad. Most of us simply want the safest, most effective option available, whether it’s food, herbs, or a pharmaceutical drug. And for those who have been told their condition is terminal, alternative medicine may offer precious hope they thought was lost. But choosing between herbs and drugs is often difficult because the information that we need to make these decisions is largely unavailable. There are two reasons for that. The first one is purely economic and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of natural compounds: pharmaceutical and biotech companies invest heavily to create new-to-nature molecules they can easily patent, in order to create lucrative monopolies.* That is why there is very little money and interest from the pharmaceutical companies for natural compounds (but plenty for “analogs”). The second reason is regulatory: not only is little money invested in research with natural compounds, but herb and supplement manufacturers who dare research their products can be put out of business if their research is deemed by authorities to reveal an intent of bringing to market a product that could help treat a medical condition. One would think that there could be no serious objection to accurately informing the public about any lawful activity. After all, the First Amendment requires liberty to discuss publicly all matters of public concern. But since the enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health Safety Act in 1994, manufacturers making health related claims or deemed to make an implied claim, or even deemed to have the intent to make a possible claim on food products, have been prosecuted.

The Failing War On Cancer

How many billions of dollars have been spent in vain on the war on cancer since President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971? As long as the pharmaceutical companies’ quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer. This intellectually reductive approach prevents most scientists from looking in the right places to treat cancer. In the face of this failure, those who are supposed to be accountable for our malfunctioning public health policies will instead witch hunt the free thinkers and discoverers who dare defy the laws of money, think outside the box, and, in the end, offer substantial help to humanity.

The good news is that more and more good doctors are refusing to be turned into five-minute prescription dispensers. They recognize that medicine is a holistic, multifaceted discipline. They value nutrition, psychology, and environmental medicine as part of their medical practices. Meanwhile, patients are becoming more and more empowered and educated. In growing numbers, patients are seeking new personalized solutions to replace the old one-size-fits-all approach to medicine.

* The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) asserts that natural products no longer can be patented because of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Association for Molecular Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, in which the court ruled that the isolation of genes that are found in nature does not make them patentable. On March 4, 2015, the USPTO updated its guidelines for patent examiners, instructing them to reject patent claims that seek to protect all purified natural products, not just DNA. This new guideline makes patenting extracts of natural products even more problematic than in the past, and some patent attorneys question whether paclitaxel would be approved today. Source: Hirshfeld AH. “2014 procedure for subject matter eligibility analysis of claims reciting or involving laws of nature/natural principles, natural phenomena, and/or natural products [memorandum].” United States Patent and Trademark Office. March 4, 2014.

"Sylvie Beljanski writes a ‘must-read’ if you are involved in any way with cancer and chronic disease."

Annie Brandt, Founder & President Emerita, Best Answer for Cancer Foundation

covid-19 ebook