How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth

In prior sections I have discussed how the “Cancer Industry” (i.e. Big Pharma, the FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, AMA, ad nauseum) uses statistics to lie about the lack of effectiveness of orthodox cancer treatments.

This section will deal specifically with how they suppress the existence of the charts mentioned in the prior chapter. However, before understanding how the Cancer Industry does its thing, we must first talk about how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the truth about the relationship between tobacco and cancer, emphysema, etc. for over 65 years.

If someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do:

  1. Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer,
  2. Determine the percentage of smokers who get lung cancer,
  3. Run the statistics

A class of high school students with a phone book could do a study that found a highly, statistically significant relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer. It is easy to find non-smokers, it is easy to find smokers, thus this type of study would always be an easy thing to do. Of course there are more ways to ascertain the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer than this, but this is the technique I want to emphasize.

The first scientific study finding the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer was done in the early 1930s. There had been many informal observations before that first scientific study, but we will start with the early 1930s.

As time passed there were more and more scientific studies that related tobacco products and lung cancer. By the 1950s there was simply an overwhelming amount of scientific information that linked tobacco products to lung cancer.

So why was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had to wait until the 1990s?

The tobacco industry did a lot of things to suppress the truth. By far the most effective of these tactics was to use bribery to control the politicians (“bribery” is a term I use to encompass a wide variety of influence tactics) and advertising money to control the media. That was as easy as stealing candy from a baby. As always it worked to perfection.

Furthermore, it is easy to bribe executives of organizations. The AMA was easy to control and at no time offered a threat to the tobacco industry. It is the scientists they had to control. But how do you use bribery to control the scientific establishment? Aren't they people of impeccable integrity? It turns out that the answer is ‘no'.

The “scientific” community was more than eager to take a share of the tobacco industry money pie and do numerous “bogus” scientific studies that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Now the reader might wonder how a “scientist” can do a scientific study and not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It is easy to do – just design a study that doesn't look for a relationship.

The tobacco industry set up numerous “front companies” to do certain tasks, one of which was to fund scientific studies that did not look for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. They spent scores of millions of dollars funding these studies.

Since 1954, one of CTR's [Council for Tobacco Research – U.S.A., Inc.] principal activities has been to fund scientific research by independent scientists through its grant-in-aid program, under the supervision of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) supplemented on occasion by research contracts. CTR itself has not conducted any scientific research. Through this research program, from 1954 through 1996 CTR has provided approximately $282 million to fund over 1,500 research projects by approximately 1,100 independent scientists.

The researchers who have received CTR grant funding have been affiliated with approximately 300 medical schools, universities, hospitals and other research institutions, including such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Medicine, Stanford University, numerous institutions in the University of California system, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the University of Chicago Medical Center, the Scripps Research Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the Salk Institute. The researchers who have received this funding have not been employees of the tobacco companies or CTR. CTR's grantees have included many distinguished scientists, three of whom have won Nobel Prizes.
http://www.rkmc.com/tobacco.order91097.asp

Now explain something to me. If a group of high school students with a phone book can scientifically prove there is a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, emphysema, etc., how is it possible that 1,500 research projects, done over a period of 42 years, by researchers at 300 prestigious medical schools, etc. had not been able to find a relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer, emphysema, etc..

The answer is that in order to obtain funding, they knew they had better not find a relationship. The rules of getting research money are very simple. You ascertain who you are getting paid by, you ascertain what they what you to publish, then you accept their money and do a study which does not double-cross them. Otherwise, your “research” money dries up real fast.

In other words, these “researchers” weren't looking for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, they were looking for research money. They weren't looking for useful, scientific truth, they were looking for a source of long-term funding.

Here is an interesting quote:

Far from being independent, the activities of the CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] and SAB [Scientific Advisory Board] activities were monitored and controlled by industry representatives, including tobacco company lawyers and public relations consultants. Indeed, the lawyers stopped central nervous system research proposals, screen out ‘dangerous project proposals', and funded ‘special projects' designed for litigation purposes.”
It continues,

“Although the industry funded a number of other ‘outside' research projects, it did so only when it received clear advance assurances of a ‘favorable' outcome. For example, Dr. Gary Huber, then of Harvard, solicited industry funds with his view that ‘the number of people at potential risk from tobacco consumption is extremely small relative to the very large number of people who now smoke.' ” (Page 20 of the report, or Bates Page 681879286)
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/37575.html?start_page=1&end_page=462

The “researchers” who, year after year, dipped into this money pot had to know what was going on. It seems that a person who picks a career as a doctor or scientist is not much different than a person who picks a career as a politician. They are both looking for the same thing – money.

The result of this funding scam was that there were numerous scientific studies that found a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer in scientific journals (which were not funded by the tobacco industry), and there were numerous scientific studies, just mentioned, that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer (those that were funded by the tobacco industry).

Because of the “confusion” caused by these different studies there was not a “consensus” among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer were related.

And here is the critical key: without a consensus there was not “scientific evidence” that there was a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc. There must be a consensus for “scientific evidence.” At least that is what the media would like you to believe.

However, when there is a consensus of opinion by researchers who do not have a conflict of interest (i.e. they aren't funded by the group being investigated), then it should be considered that THERE IS A CONSENSUS and there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

The statement above is absolutely essential to understand. ANY study done under the control of the industry being investigated should be IGNORED by scientific circles. However, the money is too good for them to be ignored by the “scientific” establishment.

Let me give you a more recent example of why industry sponsored studies should NEVER be published or even be considered. Aspartame, known also as NutraSweet, Equal, etc., was very controversial during the time it was being studied. It caused holes in the brains of rats. Some scientists didn't want it approved for human consumption. Even some scientists in the FDA didn't want it approved.

Dr. Ralph G. Walton, M.D., did a study of 166 published studies on the safety of aspartame. The funding of these studies were from the following sources:

  1. The pharmaceutical industry funded 74 of the studies
  2. The FDA funded 7 studies
  3. There were 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA

Now stop and think real hard – which of the three groups of studies didn't find anything wrong with aspartame?

Of the 74 Big Pharma funded studies, not a single one of them found any health problems caused by aspartame. Of the 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them did find health problems caused by aspartame. Do you see a pattern here?

Where do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found no health problems caused by aspartame.
See: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

By the way, Walton put the “research” funded by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI – a noble sounding name) in with the group of industry sponsored studies. It seems that Big Pharma, and others, funded a group similar to the CTR of the tobacco industry.

This kind of “science” sounds strangely like what happened with the tobacco industry. Because of this dilution, when I tell someone that aspartame causes brain cancer, birth defects, etc. (actually over 90 different documented health problems), people just look at me and laugh. They will say there is “no scientific evidence” that aspartame causes any health problems. Or they will say you have to drink 800 Diet Cokes every day for it to affect your health. That is exactly what the food industry wants you to think.

But the truth is far different than the nonsense. My point is that scientists still seem quite willing to give people who fund their studies whatever they want.

When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.
Shirley Chisholm

Now let's turn our attention to the Cancer Industry. Let us suppose that someone wanted to test Vitamin C versus chemotherapy in a scientific study. They would simply do the following:

  1. With one group of patients, determine the “total life” of people who were given chemotherapy, but who did not take Vitamin C.
  2. With one group of patients, similar in age, type of cancer, etc., determine the “total life” of people who took Vitamin C therapy, and who did not take chemotherapy,
  3. Run the statistics

It sounds so simple. But there is a problem, our corrupt government can stop anyone who wants to do a study for item #2. In fact they can stop a study on live patients for any type of alternative treatment for cancer.

The FDA will not allow anyone to do a scientific study to find the “total life” of people who use Vitamin C therapy and who do not take chemotherapy. Their lie to justify this absurd policy is to “protect the public.” The truth is that they don't want the truth to come out about how bad orthodox cancer treatments are relative to alternative treatments.

(Note: The FDA cannot stop scientists from doing studies using cancer cells in cultures, using mice, rats, or doing statistical studies with public data, etc. Thousands of such studies have been done. However, they can stop clinical trials involving humans in the United States. They will not acknowledge human studies unless they are done by pharmaceutical companies. For example, they do not acknowledge foreign studies on humans, such as have been done with MGN-3 and Vitamin C.)

Could a study comparing chemotherapy to Vitamin C be ethically justified? Of course, just find patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer for an alternative medicine study. Or pick cancer patients who have been declared terminal. How can building their immune system and safely and selectively killing their cancer cells do them any harm? But “ethics” is a dirty word in Washington. If high ranking government employees had ethics, it would massively affect their retirement program from Big Pharma.

The Linus Pauling / Ewan Cameron study had to be done in Scotland and it was done on terminal patients.

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the [approved] statistical information necessary to prove that alternative treatments are far better than chemotherapy. That is one of the many reasons the FDA was created. The FDA only “accepts” studies done by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that are controlled by Big Pharma. Everyone else is ignored.

Chapter 11: Scientific Studies

Save