- "Everyone should know that most cancer research
is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are
derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus
Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
-
- Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars
spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of
a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues
to increase?
-
- Cancer Is Increasing
-
- Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause
of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United
Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths.
(1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2)
The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most
Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just
due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and
that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more
people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting
cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is
also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous
population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular
cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.
-
-
- The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed
-
- "My overall assessment is that the national cancer
programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who
spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was
editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival
statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now
count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose
at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer.
Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.
More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women
with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported
as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and
say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival
rates improperly."
-
- A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine
assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years
1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which
account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the
report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since
1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense
effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified
failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing
the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards
prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)
-
- Most Cancer IS Preventable
-
- According to the International Agency for Research in
Cancer "...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally
and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer
include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products
and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight,
food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic
radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures.
But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite
the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental
influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute
budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that
the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than
1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition
studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by
a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)
-
- Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry According to
Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously
profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and
Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds
with the 'market' showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the
past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient.
Just as the drug industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality,
so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the
dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)
-
- Desired: A State of No Cure?
-
- In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry
is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction.
For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities,
and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters
Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become
self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of
no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination
of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of
personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating
charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten
the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive
surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much
money, training and equipment is invested.
-
- Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance
and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically
promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and
disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably
without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality
occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people
around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which
were 'blacklisted' by the major cancer organisations.
-
- Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the
cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back
a cure for cancer? Author G.Edward Griffin explains ". . . let's face
it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t's obvious
that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer.
It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel's medical
monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which
scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the
money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies,
the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn't mean somebody
blew the whistle and said "hey, don't research nutrition!" It
just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias
where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9)
This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers
are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for
the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is
money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities.
And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future.
Their careers depend on it." (10)
-
- Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?
-
- A large portion of money donated to cancer research by
the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception,
been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider
the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of
the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world,
and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for
Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal
model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic
agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph
due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated
claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal
dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence
that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results
have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have
never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or
treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic
agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in
a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)
-
- In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans
are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed
by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products
of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption
is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which
seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)
-
- Imagine What Could Be Achieved
-
- The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation,
bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which
has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by
others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform
these organisations that you won't donate to them until they change their
approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human
condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach
unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that
these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.
-
-
- Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical
Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone +61 (0)2-4758-6822.
www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
-
- The above article may be downloaded, copied, printed
or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However,
printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.
-
-
- References
-
- d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality
1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991,
p. 33
-
- Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia
1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1
-
- Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette
Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer,
NZAVS, 1993, p.132
-
- Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing
Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47
-
- Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47
-
- Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud,
CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77
-
- Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65 as quoted in Hans
Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66
-
- Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette)
American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.
-
- Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report,
Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.
-
- Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988
p.179
-
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International
Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments
(D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|