"Where Freedom of Truth Prevails"
   
 

  

 

 

   Home      About Us      Our Mission       Memorials      Links           Contact Us  

 

 

CancerTruth.org Articles & News

Prev |  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    | Next
How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth - Posted on 21 May 2007
How the Truth is Suppressed
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 section. 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, 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 in red 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 pharmaceutical 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.

Could such a study be ethically justified? Of course, just find patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer for an alternative medicine study. How can building their immunity 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 who had nothing to lose by being in the study.

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the statistics 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.

Now let's talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and Pauling. What do you think the reaction of orthodox medicine was to this great discovery? Do you think they tried to find ways to use this discovery and even enhance it? Don't be absurd. Their reaction was identical to their reaction to all of the other great discoveries in alternative medicine, they wanted to bury the truth.

But one of the participants of the Vitamin C study was a two-time Nobel Prize winner. Linus Pauling had already won a Nobel Prize in chemistry and he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus orthodox medicine could not simply bury his studies. They decided to use a tactic to destroy truth that had been refined and perfected by the tobacco industry. That tactic was to create new "studies" that were designed to distract attention from the truth.

Orthodox medicine called upon Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic to design three bogus "studies," which did not, by any stretch of the imagination, follow the same treatment protocol, patient selection protocol or the same statistical evaluation protocol, as Cameron and Pauling had used (actually, Dr. Moertel was not involved in the third study). Additionally, they probably did not use natural Vitamin C.

Now note this carefully, if the Mayo Clinic wanted to know the truth about the Cameron/Pauling studies, they would have taken great care to follow their treatment protocol, patient selection protocol and statistical evaluation protocol exactly!! To use high school students again, a group of high school students could have followed the Cameron/Pauling protocols perfectly. But the Mayo Clinic took great care to make sure they did not follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols. Since they didn't follow protocols, they didn't come to the same conclusions.

So who do you think that orthodox medicine, the government, the media, quackwatch, etc. quotes when the subject of Vitamin C and cancer comes up? Obviously, they quote the Mayo Clinic studies, not the three studies (done in Scotland, Canada and Japan) that did follow the same treatment and evaluation protocols. I have an entire chapter in my free, online eBook on this subject.

The Mayo Clinic also did two bogus studies on laetrile, also known as Vitamin B17. Without going into the details, based on what I have read the "laetrile" pills provided by the NIH to the Mayo Clinic for the studies contained absolutely no natural laetrile, but they did contain some inorganic cyanide, which is poisonous. My eBook goes into a little more detail about these studies.

In short, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. a blank check and a big club to legally stop any study (that is not totally under the control of orthodox medicine) that compares alternative treatments to chemotherapy. This means item #2 above is impossible to accomplish for any type of alternative treatment, meaning that without item #2, the gathering of item #3 statistics are impossible to accumulate! The charts mentioned above can never be made!!

Lest you think that "scientists" cannot be corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, as they were by the tobacco industry, consider this quote:


"In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?

This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While the NEJM and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often collected and analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test."
http://www.healtoronto.com/big_pharm.html

But even this quote does not pinpoint how the pharmaceutical industry has achieved total suppression of truth.

Think for a moment about the difference between how the tobacco industry suppressed the truth between 1954 and the 1990s, and how the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing the truth today. Try to isolate and pinpoint the huge difference between their tactics before reading on ...

With the tobacco industry, the tobacco sponsored studies did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, and other diseases. On the other hand, non-tobacco industry studies did consistently find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc.

Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry studies on aspartame did not find any health problems with aspartame. On the other hand, the non-pharmaceutical industry studies did find health problems with aspartame.

As you might suspect, the pharmaceutical industry studies on orthodox treatments do not find any problems with orthodox cancer treatments (how can you find a problem by comparing your "old" toxic sludge to your "new" toxic sludge). However, and here is the difference, because of the FDA, NCI and AMA there are no scientific studies on alternative cancer treatments!!! They are not legal. They are not allowed.

Do you see the difference? Anyone who wants to find the truth about alternative cancer treatments are not allowed to do studies!!!!! The pharmaceutical industry has gone a giant leap beyond what the tobacco industry was able to do. There are NO truthful studies to dilute!!!

For example, during the 42 years the tobacco industry was funding their many hundreds of bogus scientific studies, suppose a government agency had the authority to block ANY study that was not funded by the tobacco industry? That is exactly the level of suppression of truth that the pharmaceutical industry has achieved - they have been able to block all cancer studies that are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry or our corrupt government!!! It is not that these studies are not being done, it is that the government does not give them any official status (more will be said about this below).

You have now heard a few of the good things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3) and a few of the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table #4). Let's analyze why, throughout your life, you have only heard the items in truth table #1 and truth table #2.

Prev |  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    | Next

 

 

         Top of Page -or- Home Page             
 
Copyright 2007 Cancer Truth Org. All rights reserved