Cancer Research - A Super Fraud

[Guest guest]

[Paranormal_Research] Cancer Research - A Super Fraud

 

 

http://www.rense.com/general9/cre.htm

 

Rense.com

 

--

 

 

 

 

 

Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?

By Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/cancer.html

 

3-31-1

 

" 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.

§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§

Paranormal_Research - With It's Roots Into The Scientific Realm

Paranormal_Research

Subscribe:......... Paranormal_Research-

digest emails:..... Paranormal_Research-digest

Individual emails:. Paranormal_Research-normal

To Post:........... Paranormal_Research

To :.... Paranormal_Research-

§ You are receiving this email because you elected to §

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without

profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§