Aside from the very powerful influence exerted by the doctor / patient mechanism, a mass exodus away from conventional cancer treatment toward proven, non-conventional treatments is also being severely hampered by the vast sea of the confusing, conflicting and often bizarre information posing as “helpful” alternative cancer advice. Take the Internet for instance. A first-time patient or someone just plain interested in researching alternative cancer advice can soon become thoroughly disheartened. Some four thousand links come up under “alternative cancer treatment” alone!
An anxious patient, with no time to separate the wheat from the chaff, is then faced with having to make a series of calculations, based solely on his own somewhat overwhelming Internet search and a sort of blind, desperate faith that somehow, the well-qualified oncologist has got to be right. “… and didn’t he warn us that there were a lot of internet ‘kooks' out there?
The patient then finds himself right back at square one and by default, the chemotherapy suggested earlier seems overall to be the “safest” bet. In the view of health reporter Phillip Day, author of Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know The Truth’, “Many people just gulp, enter the cancer tunnel and hope they come out the other end.”
Genuine treatments do exist
But despite the fact that an Internet search can very easily generate confusion, there is actually a wealth of well-documented, credible information available on the web on natural, efficacious treatments for a variety of serious illnesses, including cancer — information that in some instances, has been in existence for many years.
But information on such treatments is not widely available in the public domain. Perhaps because genuine medicine has had to fight tremendously hard to be clearly heard. And there are particular reasons why this has been so. Often, it is not so much where to look for genuine treatment and advice, as to how to look for it.
Before discussing specific natural cancer treatments in more depth, it is important that we briefly examine the reasons for the current levels of confusion surrounding genuine natural medicine as a whole. Willful distortion, negative propaganda campaigns, unwitting stupidity — you name it. Conventional and alternative, it’s taking place on both sides of the fence. We must learn to read between the lines.
Fork-tongued drug merchants
In its long, hard battle for proper recognition, genuine natural treatments for serious illnesses has always had to fight on two fronts. Firstly, they have had to do battle with those calculating opportunists the fork-tongued drug merchants who use every trick in the book to undermine any genuine treatments not under their own jurisdiction. And they will employ all means possible to disseminate their damaging disinformation as far and wide as possible in order to protect their own lucrative market.
No department, private or public, is beyond the reach of their all-consuming influence. Thriller writer John Le Carre spent many years working in the British Foreign Office and knows the politics of big business very well. His most recent book The Constant Gardener focuses on the corrupt nature of the pharmaceutical industry. In an interview on the subject, Le Carre stated recently:
Big Pharma is engaged in the deliberate seduction of the medical profession, country by country, worldwide. It is spending a fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgment to a point where, in a few years’ time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find.
In opposition to the incessant drive by big business to dominate our health choices, Dr. Matthias Rath provides a concise summary of the primary ethics of the merchant’s house:
“Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been constructed by investors, the goal being to replace effective but non-patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry tries to expand their market — that is to maintain ongoing diseases and to find new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence.
“Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is the main obstacle, why today's most widespread diseases are further expanding including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis, and many others. Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure diseases. According to health insurers, over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven therapeutic value (AOK magazine April 1998). According to medical doctors associations, the known dangerous side-effects of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer, and strokes.”
— Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998
Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.
A number of organizations are currently spearheading the fight against the pharmaceutical industries as they seek to legislate against our free use of vitamins and minerals. If this legislation is passed, it will directly affect you in many ways. A website address is included at the end of this article which enables you to quickly and easily register your protest.
Writing in the Guardian on Feb. 7, 2002, senior health editor Sarah Bosely reports, “Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written — a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy.”
These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say. Said one physician in the article, “What day is it today? I'm just working out what drug I'm supporting today.” From top to bottom, the delivery system of 21st century conventional healthcare is being bought out and taught to think of treatment and prevention of disease in pharmaceutical terms only.
Aside from the politicking and the big business string-pulling taking place behind the scenes, our minds are also being washed with the constant froth of emotive, unfounded, pro-establishment, populist headlines such as
- Another breakthrough at UCLA! … (yes, but with mice.)
- It’s in the genes! (another £5 million NOW will help us to isolate the gene in 2010 … perhaps.)
- Excitement at latest oncology findings! (Buoyant opening paragraph, descending into the usual mixture of hope extinguished by caution and the obligatory appeal to the pocket.)
- Cancer vaccine close! (Yes, and close since 1975 actually. But please, continue to give generously, because next time, it could be you!)
And so it goes on. And all the while, the mortality statistics worsen. Yet still, the money — our money — just keeps on rolling in. On that note, The Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research states: “The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organization, 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.
Thank you to Dr. Tim O'Shea for highlighting the following very important information on the practice of mammography: “This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its “detrimental” (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from breast cancer by 36 percent.”
Lorraine Day notes the same findings in her video presentation Cancer Doesn’t Scare Me Anymore. The reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision.
John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is, therefore, ridiculous to advertise mammography as “early detection.”
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don’t. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80 percent! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10-17 percent of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening, because the “benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial.” (Lancet, July 1, 1995) The harm they’re referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50 percent. (New York Times, Dec. 14, 1997)
Whilst the remit of this article does not extend to a full exploration of the physical harm being exacted by some diagnostic methods and drug treatments, or the corrupting influence that money is exerting over medicine and medical practice, let the reader be assured that conventional medicine has more than its fair share of attendant commercial pressures, and especially so in the world of cancer, as we shall later discover.
This site provides a practical and useful archive of information for what is really going on behind the scenes in Government and Big Business today. Easily navigable, and particularly accurate and unlike many political or watchdog sites of today, this website seeks to provide the truth to key issues in today's politics, without playing the sensationalist card. It is the best political site I've ever seen, and certainly on a par with www.disinformation.org, if not much better!
— Grahame Warby, LL.m International Law, Freelance Journalist
- Related: Supplements and Health — Mammograms