Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?

by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.

"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 U.S.A. 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 U.S. 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 & 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 (U.S.) 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 U.S., 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 U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations 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. . . [I]t'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 . . . [I]f 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)

Imagine What Could Be Achieved

The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, 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. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won't donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.

Return to the Top

Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone +61 (0)2-4758-6822. www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

The above article may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.

References:

1.d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33

2.Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1

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, 1993, p.132

4.Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47

5.Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47

6.Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77

7.Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65

8.as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66

9.Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.

10.Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.

11.Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179

12.Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.

-- Madame Curie (xpose@ray.com), March 31, 2001

Answers

And how many billions/year does the government spend on this "war" on cancer that LBJ started 35 years ago?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

"... this "war" on cancer that LBJ started 35 years ago?"

Small correction: It was the late Richard Nixon who announced a "war" on cancer. It was supposed to replace the race to the moon as the Next Big Thing, and incidentally prove to the world that Nixon was just as "visionary" as JFK.

BTW, Nixon also started that pernicious "war on drugs", but it wasn't part of the Big Vision thing. That was to prove he was a stern keeper of Lawn Order. The war on cancer was definitely sold as Big Vision.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 31, 2001.

Abbey:

This whole article is the kind of nonsense that you find on the web. Virtually, everything in it is wrong. I will take one example.

According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable."

Please reference journal articles to support this. I say this because you can't. I have never heard of most of these people. I knew Linus in his later years when he was on the vitamin C kick. Having won the Nobel Prize for protein structure and then Peace doesn't make all of your later statements correct.

This whole thing is nonsense. Not a mention of virus, promoters, etc [for example beta-zed transitions]. But I know better than try to convince you. I could reference lots of articles, but they aren't available on the web. You would need to go the the library of a research university and read the actual literature.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

"DDT is safe. There is no link between Benzene and cancer. Vinyl Chloride does not cause neurological damage." - excerpts from scientists exposed on PBS documentary "Trade Secrets"

"This whole thing is nonsense" - brainwashed scientist

-- Madame Curie (xpose@ray.com), March 31, 2001.

Z, you obviously don't realize what an idiot you sound like. If you had bothered to watch the PBS special, instead of stubbornly insisting that everything you learned 50 years ago in your egocentric bubble of foolishness still holds true, you would know that the scientists and medical researchers employed by the very same companies that manufactured these chemicals told them that in fact they were causing cancer. Idiots like you decided to conceal this information, and many people have died because of it.

-- (stupidity should @ be. a crime), March 31, 2001.

Stupidity:

A PBS special. Sure where I got my education.

I will put my PhD and 35 y of experience in molecular biology against your PBS program anyday. Not to mention that I have safety oversight for 4 research hospitals and a med school at the moment. Read every research protocol. Then there are the years working on environmental carcinogens.

Of course Gregor also actually worked in the field before he quit. Still he is some jungle town at the moment or he could chime in.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

Abbey:

"This whole thing is nonsense" - brainwashed scientist

Perhaps, but at least a scientist rather than a propagandist. *<(((

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

LOL! I rest my case.

Once again, Z proves that he suffers from delusions of grandeur. He claims to have 35-50 years of experience and a PHD in every subject known to man so he cannot even consider research by qualified scientists. What he learned is the truth and the ONLY truth, so everyone else is wrong.

For everyone else who did not get to see the show and may be interested in educating themselves, you can find a summary here...

http://www.pbs.org/tradesecret s/"

Even the very scientists who were employed by companies like Conoco, Dupont, and BF Goodrich discovered the risks, but of course if you would like to remain an ignorant fool, just listen to Z, he knows everything.

-- LMAO! (ignorance is bliss @ for. Z), March 31, 2001.

By-the-by Abbey:

You are welcome here. If you want to discuss these things in a rational matter, we can do that. We can probably come to some agreement on the importance of environmental carcinogens. Calling names will not get you far. We tend to ignore the riffraff . It comes with a free and open board. Mostly a bunch of losers with no ideas to add.

You will find it a waste of time to even acknowledge many of the posters. Ditzy won't work here.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

Ok, can I chip in here?

Needs no approval.....Am I the only one who believes there already IS a cure for cancer?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 31, 2001.

LMAO:

I work with facts. You said:

Even the very scientists who were employed by companies like Conoco, Dupont, and BF Goodrich discovered the risks,

Document the facts please. Now I don't disagree with the contentions provided, but you should provide information that supports their view. This would include widespread clinical studies [of course controlled]. Do they represent the opinions of all of the scientists at those companies? Are they qualified to made medical decisions? I am willing to learn from someone who knows so much.

Just give me the facts. Not some PBS interpretation [by the way it was a well done piece] of a limited study.

There is, of course, a good reason why cancer deaths are increasing. You of course know that reason. Right?

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

The actual documents were shown in the PBS show dumbshit. Don't pretend you were watching and actually listening it, since you were still hiding in your egocentric bubble of denial that anyone else could possibly have evidence contradictory to your ignorance. It's all in the transcript at the link provided, not that you will read it, blind one.

Actually it is best if you continue to remain in your bubble of ignorance, this is part of the process of natural selection which will guarantee the survival of only the fittest of our species. Narrow-minded dumbshits like yourself will not evolve, and will eventually die off. The rest of the human race will be very thankful that this process still works.

-- (Z living @ in. dark ages), March 31, 2001.

Ignoring the above high school students who have nothing to do on Sunday.

Abbey:

I just read what I wrote so quickly. So you don't interpret incorrectly, I didn't mean to suggest that you were riffraff. I was talking about other unnamed people [those folks who offer no information or knowledge and continually change their name; we used to call them cowards]. I would like to discuss these things with you and others who actually have some thoughts on the matter. The ability of you and your friends to pull this stuff from the web is amazing.

Welcome to Unk-world.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

"Ignoring the above high school students who have nothing to do on Sunday."

Ignoring? Good! Please remain ignorant, it is best. (see last reply)

Sunday? Oh, excuse me, I thought you were just ignorant. Now I understand, you are also going senile. Today is SATURDAY, oh ignorant one.

-- LOL (look it up @ in your. 50 year-old textbooks), March 31, 2001.

LOL:

Maybe it is Saturday where you are! I see that they don't teach geography in high school now.

Makes no never mind. I am in the air again. I hope to see Sunday in the US.

If you want to talk about this stuff, drop the insults and the propaganda and produce some facts and points of discussion.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

Who the hell is Abbey?

-- Madame Curie (xpose@ray.com), March 31, 2001.

Z:

Still and all, something tells me we are engaged in a massive long- term experiment with ourselves as the subjects. I don't think you can deny there has been a change in our national diet (just look at the burger franchise numbers), in our national air quality, in our per capita exercise, in our intake of dyes and preservatives and other shelf-life enhancers. We are lucky that correlation isn't causation, because correlations with cancer we have, and fairly high.

I believe our cancer research is useful, necessary and maybe even on the right track. But it is still essentially Western in approach, looking for an after-the-fact quickfix in leiu of a lifestyle change. To some extent, if we find something that appears to be causing cancer (like smoking), a good "cure" (and maybe the best) is to *stop doing that*!

(But you must try to imagine what I would pay for a pill or injection or *something* that would let me keep smoking and just eliminate the undesirable side effects. Oh pretty please!)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 31, 2001.

Flint:

Yes, I can see nothing but water now. Just amusing myself.

You have done this before. I have no argument with your points, although we can discuss the interaction between politics and clinical research until the cows come home.

My point is: 80 to 90% of the cancer deaths are caused by environmental contaminants. In a way it is true. Just doesn't include human produced contaminants as the major contributor. It may, but the data is not there to prove it; except on web sites; where data isn't required. Cancer and heart disease kill more people because we live longer. These are diseases of old age. Misreading of DNA or such things. It is a statistical fact. Not much can be done about it at the present. We can talk about this in the future. This is hurried because I must sign off.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 31, 2001.

I for one am very glad for all this fradulent research. Without it, I would not be writing this today.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 31, 2001.

I agree Dudesy. I am glad for it also, because without it you wouldn't be here. That would be sad.

-- good point tarzan (good@point.tarzan), April 01, 2001.

Cancer and heart disease kill more people because we live longer.

That is it. I'm not a PhD, nor any sort of biologist, but simple logic tells me that increasing lifespan from 35 years to 70 years will bring with it new types of health problems.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 01, 2001.

Dudesy? I thought I was supposed to be Flint.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 01, 2001.

LN--

I stand corrected. Nixon launched the "war on cancer" on Jan 22, 1971. I must have confused the war on C with LBJ's "war on poverty". Politicians love the war metaphor; war on cancer, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime, etc.

The point I was making was not to criticize LBJ but to correct the title of this thread which blames "corporate fraud" for the never-won war on C. Fact is the Feds have been dispensing billions on this worthy goal for 30 years and C is still here as are the empires that were created along the way. I am not so cynical to argue that the "war" has not made progress but sadly note that there are thousands of people who would lose their careers if the war is ever won. They have a vested interest in never totally winning. The same is true for many other diseases, for poverty, for narcotics, etc etc.

An aside, the first War on Cancer was officially waged by the Nazis. Maybe we could link Nixon to those efforts.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 01, 2001.