Cancer research, suspicion of a super fraud
“Everyone should know that most cancer investigations are, in large part, fraud and that most cancer research organizations are left, in their functions, in the hands of the people who support them. ” – Linus Pauling Ph.D. (winner of the Nobel Prize).
Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars that were spent on cancer investigation over many decades and the constant promise of a cure that is always "close", cancer continues to increase?
Cancer is increasing
What is quite strange, cancer now represents the second main cause of death in west countries such as Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. In the early 40s, cancer represented 12% of Australia deaths. By 1992 this figure had increased to 25.9% of deaths in Australia. The growing trend of cancer deaths and the incidence of this disease are typical in most western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is due precisely to the fact that people now live longer than their predecessors and that, therefore, the increase in cancer is exclusively due to the fact that more people live until they are larger andthat, consequently, has a greater opportunity to get cancer. However, this argument is invalidated by the fact that cancer is also increasing in lower age groups, as has been demonstrated through the findings of numerous population studies that related different lifestyles of life styles of particular cultures withThe particular forms of cancer predominant in those cultures.
The "orthodox war against cancer" has failed
"My total evaluation is that the National Cancer Program must be judged as a qualified error". The doctor. John Bailer, who for 20 years belonged to the staff of the National Cancer American Institute and was editor of the Bulletin of this Institute.The doctor. Bailer also said: "Five -year survival statistics of the American cancer society lead to confusion. They count things that are not cancer and due to the fact that diagnoses can be made in the first stages of the disease, it seems wrong that patients lived longer. All our cancer investigations of the last 20 years have been a complete mistake. More people over 30 years die of cancer than before … Statistics include more women with mild or benign diseases and registers them as "cured". When government officials indicate survival figures and say they are winning the war on cancer, they are not using those survival rates properly."
A 1986 report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated progress against cancer in the United States during the 1950s to 1982. Despite the progress against some strange forms of cancer, which represent 1 to 2 percent of the total deaths caused by this disease, the report found that the total death rate had increased considerably since 1950: “the main conclusion to which whichWe arrive is that the 35 years of intense effort dedicated, in large part, to the improvement of treatments should be considered as a qualified failure."
The report finally concludes that "… we are losing the war against cancer" and bogy for a change in giving importance to prevention if substantial advances must be made.
Most cancer cases can be prevented
According to the International Agency for Cancer Research ”… 80-90 percent of human cancer is determined in environmental way and therefore can be avoided in theory."The environmental causes of cancer include lifestyles factors, such as smoking, a high diet in animal products and fresh & vegetable fruit, excessive exposure to sunlight, additives in meals, alcohol, the dangers ofWorkplaces, pollution, electromagnetic radiation and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hanschof (United States) is assigned to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that most environmental causes are related to nutrition, less than 1 percent of the NCO budget is dedicated to nutrition studies. And even that little sum had to be included in the institute through a special amendment of the 1974 National Cancer Law."
Prevention – Not profitable for industry
According to DR. Robert Sharpe, ”in our culture treating diseases is something extremely profitable, preventing no. In 1985, it was estimated that Cancer treatments markets in the United States, Western Europe and Japan amounted to more than 3.2 billion pounds and that the "market" showed a sustained annual increase of 10 percent in the last five years. The fact of preventing the disease does not benefit anyone except the patient. As well as the pharmaceutical industry, in the mentality of "a pill for all ailment", in the same way many of the leading medical associations are financially supported by the dream of a miraculous cure, which is precisely around the corner of the corner."
Desired: A state of non -healing?
In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is supported by a policy of deliberately going in the opposite direction. For example, at the end of the 70s, after having studied the policies, activities and assets of the main institutions related to cancer in the United States, Robert Houston and Gary Null’s research reports concluded that these institutionsThey had become organizations that perpetuated themselves, whose survival depended on the state of non -healing. They wrote, "a solution to cancer could mean the end of research programs, the expiration of capacities, the end of the dreams of personal glory, the triumph over cancer could drown contributions to charity institutions that self-perpetuate inThe time and cut the financing of the Congress, would threaten the current clinical establishments of death by becoming obsolete the surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment are invested so much. This fear, despite being unconscious, can result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches that are presented as promising from the therapeutic point of view. You should not believe in the new treatment, you have to deny it, discourage its use and prohibit it at all costs, without considering the current test results and preferably, without performing any tests. As we will see, this pattern has occurred repeatedly today and almost consistently."In truth, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by treatments that" were part of the black lists "of the main cancer organizations.
Does this mean that all people related to cancer research and medical industry are part of some type of "conspiracy" to retain cancer cure? The author g. Edward Griffin explains “… let’s face it, those people die of cancer like everyone else … It is obvious that these people do not consciously hide a cancer control. However, it means that the medical monopoly of the poster (pharmacist-chemical) has created a climate of influences in our educational system in which the scientific truth is often sacrificed for created interests … If money comes from pharmaceutical companies,Emphasis is placed on the direction of pharmaceutical research. This does not mean that someone blew the whistle and said "Hey, do not investigate nutrition!"It simply means that no one is financing nutrition research. Therefore it is an inclination in which the scientific truth is often overshadowed by created interests."
Money spent on fraudulent research?
Much of the money donated by the public for cancer investigation is spent on investigation on animals that, since its inception, has been widely condemned as a loss of money and resources. For example, consider the 1981 congressional testimony, pronounced by DR. Irwin Bross, former director of Sloan-Kettering, the world’s largest cancer research institute and then director of Bioestadistics at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Buffallo, NY: "The uselessness of most studiesIn animal models it is less known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely proclaimed as a triumph due to the use of animal models systems. However, again in this case, these exaggerated statements derive or are approved by the same people who obtain federal dollars for animal research. There is little evidence, if there is, that supports these statements. In truth, while the conflicting results with animals have postponed and prevented progress in the war on cancer, have never produced any substantial advance in prevention or treatment of human cancer. For example, practically all chemotherapeutic agents that are of value in the treatment of cancer in humans were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies."
In fact, many substances that cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animals with animals. As the dr. Werner Hartinger in Germany, regarding the products of the pharmaceutical industry -Petrochemistry that cause cancer, "constant consumption is legalized based on experiments with animals that lead to error … that seduce the consumer with a false sense of security."
The next time they asked to donate money for cancer -related organization, remember that your money will be used to sustain an industry that has been considered by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and others, such as a total fraud. If you want to make a difference, inform these organizations not to donate your money until you change your approach to one that focuses on the prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to modify things by making the current approach not profitable. Only through our charity donations and taxes can survive these institutions in their current non -productive path.
Leave feedback