SHARE...

Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

Everyone should be aware that the majority of cancer research is fraudulent and that the major cancer research organizations have failed in their obligations to the donors who fund them. – Dr. Linus Pauling (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

Have you ever questioned why cancer rates continue to rise despite the enormous sums of money spent on research into the disease over many years and the persistent assurance that a solution is always “just around the corner”?

Cancer Rates Are Rising

Cancer, which was formerly relatively uncommon, is now the second leading cause of death in Western nations including Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Early in the 1940s, cancer was the 12% cause of death in Australia. (1) In 1992, this percentage had increased to 25.9% of all deaths in Australia. (2) Most Western countries share the rising trend in cancer incidence and mortality. According to others, the reason why there has been an increase in cancer cases is simply because people are living longer than they did in the past. As a result, more people are living longer and consequently have a higher risk of developing cancer. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact that younger age groups are also experiencing an increase in cancer cases, as well as by the results of several demographic studies that have connected certain aspects of a culture’s lifestyle to the specific types of cancer that are prevalent there.

The “War on Cancer” in Orthodoxy Has Failed

Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years working at the American National Cancer Institute and served as editor of its journal, stated, “My overall view is that the national cancer program must be regarded a qualified failure.” (3) Dr. Bailer adds, “The American Cancer Society’s five-year survival rates are quite deceptive. They now list things that are not cancer, and because we can detect the disease earlier, patients appear to survive longer than they actually do. In the last 20 years, everything of our cancer research has been a complete failure.

More adults over 30 are passing away from cancer today than ever before. Statistics of ‘cured’ women with minor or benign illnesses are becoming more common. Government officials misuse survival rates when they cite them as proof that they are winning the battle against cancer.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper in 1986 evaluating the advancements made in the fight against cancer from 1950 to 1982 in the United States. The report found that the overall death rate had significantly increased since 1950 despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2% of all deaths brought on by the disease: “The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.” The report went on to state that “we are losing the war against cancer” and argued that if significant advancements were to be made, the focus should be shifted to prevention. (4) Most cancers CAN be avoided.

The International Agency for Research in Cancer states that “80 to 90% of human cancer is determined by environmental factors and is therefore theoretically preventable.”

(5) Lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit and vegetables, excessive sun exposure, food additives, alcohol, workplace dangers, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even some prescription medications and medical procedures are examples of environmental causes of cancer. Unfortunately, less than 10% of the budget for the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute is allocated to environmental causes, as stated by medical historian Hans Ruesch: “Despite the universal recognition that environmental factors account for 85% of all malignancies. Less than 1% of the National Cancer Institute’s budget is allocated to nutrition research, despite the fact that it is well acknowledged that diet plays a substantial role in most environmental causes of disease. Furthermore, a specific amendment to the National Cancer Act passed in 1974 had to be used to impose even that meager sum on the Institute. (6) Industry Profitability of Prevention

Dr. Robert Sharpe claims that while treating sickness is very profitable in our culture, preventing it is not. The market for cancer therapies in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan was estimated to be worth over 3.2 billion pounds in 1985, with the’market’ exhibiting a consistent yearly growth of 10% over the previous five years. No one save the patient gains from disease prevention. Many of the top medical charities rely on the hope that a miracle treatment is just around the horizon, much like the pharmaceutical industry relies on the idea that there is a “pill for every ill.” (7) Wanted: An uncurable state

In fact, according to some observers, the cancer business is supported by a purposeful policy of looking in the wrong direction. For instance, the investigative journalists Robert Houston and Gary Null came to the conclusion that the major cancer institutions in the United States had become self-perpetuating organizations whose survival depended on the absence of a cure in the late 1970s after studying their policies, operations, and assets. “A cure for cancer would mean the end of research projects, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up donations to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by making obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological, and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training, and equipment is invested,” they wrote. Such anxiety, however unconscious, may lead to animosity and resistance to other techniques in proportion to how therapeutically effective they are. Regardless of the findings of any testing, ideally none at all, the new therapy must be disregarded, discouraged, and forbidden at all costs. We’ll discover that this trend has actually reproduced itself extremely consistently. (8) In fact, many people believe they have been cured by treatments that the main cancer organizations have “blacklisted.”

Does this imply that EVERYONE involved in the field of cancer research is actively working to delay the development of a treatment for the disease? Let’s face it, these people pass away from cancer like everyone else, says author G.Edward Griffin. It is clear that these individuals are not purposefully withholding a cancer control. It does, however, imply that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel’s medical monopoly has fostered prejudice in our educational system and frequently results in the surrender of scientific truth to entrenched interests. Drug research is encouraged if funding for it is coming directly or indirectly from pharmaceutical corporations. That does not imply that someone raised the alarm and advised against researching nutrition. Simply put, it indicates that no one is funding nutrition research.

Therefore, it is a bias where vested interests frequently obscure scientific truth.

(9) Dr. Sydney Singer makes a similar statement in the following way: Scientists are similar to prostitutes. They labor for grants. They move to where there is money if there isn’t any for the projects they are personally interested in. Instead of the universities, their income is derived straight from their funding. And they want to win over the grantor so they can receive additional funds in the future. It is crucial to their careers. (10)

Spending Money on False Research?

Animal research, which has been extensively criticized since its inception as a waste of time and resources, receives a significant amount of public donations made to cancer research. For instance, take into account the 1981 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Irwin Bross, then-Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY, and former Director of Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world: “The utility of most animal model studies is less well known. For instance, thanks to the use of animal model systems, the development of chemotherapeutic drugs for the treatment of human cancer has received much praise. But once again, the folks who receive federal funding for animal studies are the ones who are making or endorsing these overstated claims. There is scant, if any, factual evidence to back up these assertions. Indeed, despite the fact that contradicting animal results have frequently slowed and prevented advancements in the fight against cancer, neither the prevention nor treatment of human cancer have ever seen a single significant development as a result. In contrast to animal studies, almost all of the chemotherapeutic drugs useful in the treatment of human cancer were discovered in clinical settings. On the basis of studies conducted on animals, many drugs that cause cancer in people are actually promoted as “safe.” German physician Dr. Werner Hartinger stated that the pharmaceutical and petrochemical industry’s cancer-causing products are “constantly legalized on the basis of misleading animal trials… which entice the consumer into a false sense of security.”

(12)

Think About What Could Be Done

The next time a cancer organization asks for donations, remember that your money will be used to support a sector that many famous scientists have labeled as a qualified failure and others as a total hoax. Tell these organizations that you won’t donate to them until they adopt a strategy that is centered on prevention and the study of human condition if you want to make a difference. We have the ability to influence events by rendering their current strategy ineffective. These institutions are only able to continue on their current fruitless course because of our philanthropic contributions and taxes.

Top of the page

If the copyright and disclaimer notices are clearly attached, this article may be reproduced or disseminated.

Disclaimer: This information is provided solely for educational reasons and is not meant to replace professional or medical advice. Any liability to a person resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the offered information is expressly disclaimed by CAFMR.

Trends in Australian Mortality 1921–1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33.

Causes of Death, Australia 1992, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 1993, p.

Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Annual Meeting in May 1985, Dr. Bailer is quoted in Bette Overall’s book Animal Research Takes Lives – Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer. 1993’s NZAVS, page 132

The Cruel Deception by Robert Sharpe, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, United Kingdom, 1988, p.

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

Naked Empress: The Great Medical Fraud, by Hans Ruesch, 1992, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, p. 77

Hans Ruesch, op. cit. 1992, p.65-66, citing Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65.

The Politics of Cancer by Edward Griffin, American Media, 1975, available from CAFMR for $14.

Irwin Bross, as cited in Robert Sharpe, op. cit., 1988 p.179 Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech delivered at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E. ), London, 24 September 1992. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 5., Medical Demystification Crusade