Positive Health Online

Volunteer for EDTA Chelation Therapy

If any organization is conducting research on EDTA Chelation Therapy for heart conditions, please contact the undersigned.
Thank you
AN Moosa, Leicester
azizmoosa1945@hotmail.com

Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?

by Robert Ryan, BSc

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever ‘just around the corner’, cancer continues to increase?

Cancer Is Increasing
Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the USA. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths.1 By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths.2 The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.

The Orthodox ‘War on Cancer’ Has Failed
“My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure” Dr John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the US National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal.3 Dr Bailer also says: “The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.” A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: “The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.” The report further concluded that “…we are losing the war against cancer” and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress.4

Most Cancer IS Preventable
According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer “…80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable.”5 Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit and vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, “Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (US) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974.”6

Prevention – Not Profitable to Industry
According to Dr Robert Sharpe, “…in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the US, Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the ‘market’ showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the ‘pill for every ill’ mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner.”7

Desired: A State of No Cure?
In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major US cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organizations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, “a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently.”8 Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were ‘blacklisted’ by the major cancer organisations.

Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G Edward Griffin explains “…let’s face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else…. It’s obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests …If the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn’t mean somebody blew the whistle and said “hey, don’t research nutrition!” It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest.”9 This point is similarly expressed by Dr Sydney Singer: “Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it.”10

Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: “The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies.”11 In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as ‘safe’ on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, “Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments… which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security.”12

References

1.    d’Espaignet ET et al. Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988. Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS). Canberra. p 33. 1991.
2.    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Causes of Death. Australia 1992. ABS, Canberra. p1. 1993.
3.    Dr Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer. NZAVS, p132. 1993.
4.    Robert Sharpe. The Cruel Deception. Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, UK p 47. 1988.
5.    Robert Sharpe. op. cit. p 47. 1988.
6.    Hans Ruesch. Naked Empress – the Great Medical Fraud. CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, p 77. 1992.
7.    Robert Sharpe, op. cit. p.65. 1988.
8.    as quoted in Hans Ruesch. op.cit. p 65-66. 1992.
9.    Edward Griffin. The Politics of Cancer. (audio cassette) American Media. available from CAFMR $14. 1975.
10.    Sydney Singer. Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report. Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, CA, USA. 1992.
11.    Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit. p179. 1988.
12.    Dr Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (DBAE), London, 24 Sept. 1992.
Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, PO Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone 0061 2-4758-6822. Reproduced from     www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

 

Further Information

www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/cancer.html

Boron and Prostate Cancer Risk

Recent research indicates that boron (a nutrient found in vegetables and fruits) may prevent prostate cancer and autoimmune diseases (including lupus, Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s disease, type-1 diabetes, vitiligo, multiple sclerosis, and more).

When examining the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers uncovered a significant relationship between boron and prostate cancer risk. After comparing the diets of nearly 8,000 men, they found that the risk of prostate cancer for men consuming an average of 1.8 milligrams of boron was less than one-third the risk for men consuming half that amount.
Another group of researchers, from the USDA’s Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, Idaho, reported that studies on animals have shown that the equivalent of 2 milligrams of boron taken daily prevents the activation of T-helper and T-suppressor cells, both of which are involved in autoimmune disease. These results were significant enough to persuade the researchers to launch a study of supplemental boron as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, which is often cited as an autoimmune disease.

What should you do? Well, you can take supplemental boron. It’s safe (when taken in low doses – up to 6 milligrams per day), inexpensive, and available in nearly all natural food stores. And, of course, don’t forget to eat your fruits and vegetables – they’re by far the best sources of boron.

If you’re not sure about boron yet, wait until you hear this: A few years ago Dr Forrest Nielsen (at the USDA research center) showed that boron helped raise levels of sex hormones internally in women past menopause and in men of the same age group.

With all of the bad news about synthetic hormone replacement therapy, it’s a relief to know that something as simple and widely available as boron might help boost your hormone levels safely and naturally.
Amanda Ross
Managing Editor,  Nutrition & Healing
Contributing Editor: Health eTips.
Source: Chris Gupta
www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/03/02/boron_and_prostate.htm
Editor’s Note:
We published an authoritative feature by Dr Rex Newnham regarding the clinical features of boron in Issue 92 (September 2003). Pity  that boron may be one of the supplements set to be removed once the EU Supplement Directive goes through.

Link Between Autism and Mercury-Containing Vaccines

The Institute of Medicine held a one-day meeting in February 2004 to review important new research on the link between thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in vaccines, and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. One of the larger studies under review comes from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink. Under independent investigation, CDC’s data concludes children are 27-times more likely to develop autism after exposure to three thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), than those who receive thimerosal-free versions.

The findings are not only disturbing to government officials like US Rep. Dave Weldon MD (R-FL), who is also scheduled to speak before the IOM panel. They suggest autism via TCVs has a higher relative risk than that between lung cancer and smoking, which according to the American Cancer Society is only 22 for men and 11 for women. “This absolutely confirms what parents have been saying for years,” says Jo Pike, President, National Autism Association. Like Pike, thousands of parents have reported sharp regressions in their children following a TCV and many of those children have gone on to receive a label of autism. An easy mistake to make since the symptoms of autism and mercury poisoning are almost identical.

Dr Mark Geier is the lead investigator in the discovery. A medical doctor with a PhD in genetics, he, along with fellow researcher, David Geier, will discuss their findings of the CDC data in front of an IOM panel. Among a host of other physicians and researchers presenting will be Dr Jeff Bradstreet. He will discuss the results from his peer-reviewed study which concluded that urinary mercury concentrations were six times higher in children with autism vs. normal-age/vaccine-matched controls.
Further Information
www.iom.edu/event.asp?id=17047
National Autism Association
Lori McIlwain, National Autism Association
Tel: 001 919 272-8192
www.nationalautism.org
Via: Chris Gupta
www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/02/26/vaccine_data_leads_to_a_shocking_discovery.htm