This item spells it out pretty clearly. We have a massive problem
with current best practice in all aspects of medicine but
particularly with Cancer. How the stats are gamed is even more
disturbing and certainly makes them generally suspect. Our so called
improvement may be nothing more that an artifact of the patients
taking their problems into their own hands.
The only thing most cancer treatment avoids is death through
mechanical strangulation by the cancer itself and that generally for
a while. Of course actual elimination of the bone marrow is
effective in certain types of cases. So while this has generated
some improvement much of what is done is more driven by fear that
good science.
A relative of mine is aged 78 and has a rare non invasive kidney
cancer. The good news is that his doctor understood that scheduled
intervention was not a good option when it was becoming more stable
because of the age factor. He now has a chance to be lucky.
Orthodox Cancer
Treatments Don’t Treat Cancer
Posted by Mark
Sircus - Director on 08 October 2012 | Filed under Medicine
5 prescription drugs
doctors had no idea could hurt their patients
Most fine doctors
like Dr.
Ben Goldacre like to have all the
available facts about a prescription drug before prescribing it.
However, when it comes to pharmaceutical medicines, it’s nearly
impossible to find real data, so doctors really never know the true
dangers about the drugs they use.
Not only are they not
sure about the side effects and the possibility of death but they are
also not sure whether or not the drug will help the patient at all.
In short, modern medicine is based on research fraud and
we find doctors and medical officials, including the FDA, abandoning
their public health mission by revolving everything they do and
promote around pharmaceutical interests. Anything non-pharmaceutical
in nature is patently condemned.
In a study published
in Nature in March 2012, researchers tried to replicate the
results of 53 basic preclinical cancer studies. Of those 53 studies,
only six were replicable. In his new book, Bad Pharma, Dr.
Goldacre sounds a warning bell on the fact that drug manufacturers
are the ones who fund trials of their own products. One of the most
widely recognized and true tests of scientific proof is
when these studies showing positive results can be and are replicated
by independent researchers (not researchers chosen or paid by the
drug manufacturer providing the original finding).
“Drugs are tested by
the people who manufacture them in poorly designed trials, on
hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and
analyzed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way
that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments,” writes
Goldacre in his book. “When trials throw up results that companies
don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors
and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any
drug’s true effects.”
This dishonest,
inaccurate and incomplete representation of many of the
pharmaceutical drugs coming to market is what most doctors are basing
their holy allopathic medical practices on. What kind of medical
science do we have when negative scientific information is not
published, not accessible to practitioners, denied, repressed and
simply not included in medical conclusions?
This is a
systematic flaw in the core of medicine.
Dr. Ben Goldacre
Erick Turner did
a survey,
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, of all the
antidepressant trials filed with the United States Food and Drug
Administration. There were 38 studies that produced positive results
and 36 that produced negative results. Of the positive-result group,
37 of the studies were published. Of the negative results group, only
three were published.
Almost every day we
are hearing medical horror stories that should completely frighten
the public away from their doctors’ offices. The latest scare was
in October of 2012 where U.S. health officials ramped up warnings
about a Massachusetts specialty pharmacy linked to a widening
outbreak of a rare kind of meningitis, urging doctors and
hospitals not
to use any products from the company.
Investigators found
contamination in a sealed vial of the steroid at the New England
Compounding Center in Framingham, Mass., according to Food and Drug
Administration officials. Tests are under way to determine if it is
the same fungus blamed in the outbreak that has sickened 35 people in
six states. Five of them have died. All received steroid shots for
back pain. Almost everyday we hear another grim report of another
death.
Medical and
pharmaceutical science should be able to identify an appropriate
mechanism and what the active ingredient might be for each drug that
doctors are supposed to use. The problem is that they cannot do this
without their fraudulent research, clinical trials and even FDA
approval.
Orthodox Cancer
Treatments Don’t Treat Cancer
I have always said that orthodox oncologists use treatments and
diagnostic procedures that cause cancer to treat and diagnose cancer.
A perfect example is mammography. Every mammogram a woman
gets increases her risk of breast cancer by 5%[1],[2] due
to the radiation involved and mammograms frequently lead
to over-diagnosis
and unnecessary treatment.
Most people sense that
modern oncology is very dangerous. What is most terrible about it
though is that treatments are in no way intended to target the cause
or causes of cancer so even though the cancer industry is constantly
talking about finding the “cure,” that’s the last thing on
their agenda. The only treatments oncologists have to offer are
therapies that do not treat cancer but rather make the person sicker
and ultimately die a more horrible death.
Various analyses
show that past media coverage often gave incorrect messages about the
complexity of breast cancer, the age at which women are at highest
risk, the progress made and the importance of early detection.
Fran Visco, the
president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, believes the
solution lies in science—specifically, in studying how breast
cancer develops and metastasizes. “We get sidetracked by efforts to
focus on getting every woman a mammogram,” she recently
told The
Daily Beast. “We could screen every woman in
the world, and we would not have stopped breast cancer. I am not
saying to stop funding for screening; however, we cannot afford to
make it a main focus.”
Recent research
indicates that the cause of cancer has very little to do with
genetics. We know some basic things about why cancer starts. We
know it is initiated under low-oxygen conditions. We know that it is
initiated also by trauma and especially by inflammation. We know
with low-oxygen conditions and inflammation we have infectious agents
running around out of control.
So we have low O2, low
CO2, low pH (acidity) and low cellular energy; we have infection
hordes fighting for their existence. Mix in some inflammation,
heavy-metal and chemical contamination and nutritional deficiency
(along with some genetic disruption) and we have the recipe for
CANCER—a beast that is eating the human race alive starting with
the old but now increasingly working its way down to the young and
very young where death should not be lurking.
Does chemotherapy
or radiation treat this condition? Does it treat cancer? Does it kill
cancer when it provokes more of it? There is nothing real about
orthodox oncology. How such inaccurate ideas like those of modern
oncology could be born in an intelligent race of beings is beyond
comprehension.
A new MIT study offers
a comprehensive look at chemical and genetic changes that occur
as inflammation
progresses to cancer. One of the
biggest risk factors for liver, colon or stomach cancer is chronic
inflammation of those organs, often caused by viral or bacterial
infections.
In
2008 researchers in France found that one
in six cancers are caused by treatable
infections.[3] Helicobacter
pylori, hepatitis B and C viruses, and human papillomaviruses were
responsible for 1.9 million cases, mainly gastric, liver, and cervix
uteri cancers. In women, cervix uteri cancer accounted for about half
of the infection-related burden of cancer; in men, liver and gastric
cancers accounted for more than 80%. Around 30% of
infection-attributable cases occur in people younger than 50 years.
The Yale
Journal of Biology and Medicine tells us
that, “Tumor promotion and progression are dependent on ancillary
processes provided by cells of the tumor environment but that are not
necessarily cancerous themselves. Inflammation has long been
associated with the development of cancer. This review will discuss
the reflexive relationship between cancer and inflammation with
particular focus on how considering the role of inflammation in
physiologic processes such as the maintenance of tissue homeostasis
and repair may provide a logical framework for understanding the
connection between the inflammatory response and cancer.[4]”
“It
is believed that cancer is caused by an accumulation of mutations in
cells of the body,” says Dr.
Carlo M. Croce, professor and chair of
molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics. “Our
study[5] suggests
that miR-155, which is associated with inflammation, increases
the mutation rate and might be a key player in inflammation-induced
cancers generally.” This and many other studies show how
inflammation can help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to
infection or to conditions such as chronic inflammatory bowel disease
is associated with up to 25% of all cancers.
Chemotherapy and
radiation only make inflammation worse! These are not instruments of
cancer treatment and everyone knows that they have nothing to do with
cancer cures, which are illegal anyway. The best they can say is that
these treatments can extend your life beyond their predictions of
what would happen to you if you did not treat it in any coherent way.
“Pre-malignant
tumors are ‘wound-like’.
Such tumors are similar to healing or desmoplastic tissue in many
ways, such as the presence of activated platelets. As described by
Coussens and Hanahan, tumor growth may be ‘biphasic’. In the
first phase, the body treats early tumors as wounds. This phase is
characterized by tumor growth mediated by the actions of the stroma
‘indirect control’ as occurs in physiologic tissue repair.”[6]
Are chemotherapy and
radiation appropriate treatments for wounds? The most amazing thing
about these treatments is that many do survive these treatments,
showing us how resilient the human body really is.
Cancer Cures vs.
Cancer Death
Doctors rarely talk
about “curing” cancer. Instead, the success of treatment is
judged on whether a patient is alive five, 10 and 15 years after
diagnosis. It is amazing that, after all the slashing, burning and
poisoning that oncologists do, survival rates are actually up a
little. For instance at the turn of the decade the statistics for
England and Wales show that the five-year survival rate for all
cancers in men is 31%, while for women the survival rate is 43%. The
figures are similar for Scotland. Today though still dismal, they are
somewhat better.
But are they really
better? Certainly they would like us to think so but one of the
reasons for this is statistics. As Mark Twain said: “There lies,
damned lies and statistics.” The statistics look better because
they don’t put down that the person has died of cancer when they
have died of the side effects of radiation and chemotherapy.
“Recently a friend of mine died from rectal cancer and his wife
was stunned to see that the cancer was the third cause of death on
the death certificate after the infection and other problems caused
by the treatment,” wrote one of my readers.
This would not have
been counted as a cancer death. Also when a person is treated for
breast cancer and it moves from the breast to another area, but they
live five years after the breast cancer has been diagnosed, it is
recorded as a survival from breast cancer.
[1] The
Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X Rays and Atomic
Bomb Spectrum Radiation; G. J. Heyes1 and A. J. Mill; RADIATION
RESEARCH 162, 120–127 (2004)
[2] One
percent of American women carry a hard-to-detect oncogene, which is
triggered by radiation; a single mammogram increases their risk of
breast cancer by a factor of 4-6 times. “The usual dose of
radiation during a mammographic x-ray is from 0.25 to1 rad with the
very best equipment; that’s 1-4 rads per screening mammogram (two
views each of two breasts). And, according to Samuel Epstein, M.D.,
of the University of Chicago’s School of Public Health, the dose
can be ten times more than that. Sister Rosalie Bertell-one of the
world’s most respected authorities on the dangers of radiation-says
one rad increases breast cancer risk one percent and is the
equivalent of one year’s natural aging. “If a woman has yearly
mammograms from age 55 to age 75, she will receive a minimum of 20
rads of radiation. For comparison, women who survived the atomic bomb
blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki absorbed 35 rads. Though one large
dose of radiation can be more harmful than many small doses, it is
important to remember that damage from radiation is cumulative.”
[3] Global
burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and
synthetic analysis. Catherine de Martel MD,Jacques Ferlay ME,Silvia
Franceschi MD,Jérôme Vignat MSc,Freddie Bray PhD,David Forman
PhD,Dr Martyn Plummer PhD The Lancet Oncology – 1 June 2012 ( Vol.
13, Issue 6, Pages 607-615
[4] Why
Cancer and Inflammation?
Yale J Biol Med. 2006 December; 79(3-4): 123–130.
[5] E.
Tili, J.-J. Michaille, D. Wernicke, H. Alder, S. Costinean, S.
Volinia, C. M. Croce. Mutator activity induced by microRNA-155
(miR-155) links inflammation and cancer. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 2011; 108 (12): 4908
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1101795108
[6] Yale
J Biol Med. 2006 December; 79(3-4): 123–130;
No comments:
Post a Comment