Cancer Research Fraud

[Guest guest]

Cancer Research Fraud

 

 

" Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?

 

by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

 

" 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. . . 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 . . . 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:

1. d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988,

Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33

2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS,

Canberra, 1993, p.1

3. 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

4. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group,

Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47

5. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47

6. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS,

Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77

7. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65

8. as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66

9. Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media,

1975 available from CAFMR $14.

10. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5.,

Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.

11. Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179

12. 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.

----------