Barriers To Prevention: Why Conventional Cancer Research Does
Not Find 'The Cure'
a century, cancer
research has been devoted (so they say) to finding a cure.
Isn't it amazing how this cure is so elusive, for such a long
period of time, in the hands of thousands of skilled scientists
with billions and billions of dollars in research grants? Have
you ever wondered who the beneficiaries are of all the donations
to cancer support groups and charities for the "war against
industry' is a generic term for the ever-expanding industry
which has grown up around the disease of cancer. It is a vast
industry incorporating all services, products, materials and
technologies required for the orthodox management of the disease.
fundraisers for research and major providers of public information
and patient support services, cancer
charities and societies work in close association with the
cancer industry. Primary prevention is not their objective...never
has been and never will be. The reason is simple. Prevention
does not generate profits.
for this situation is brazenly obvious in the long-prevailing
silence from the industry on environmental, nutritional and
occupational factors in cancer. This type of silence has a very
basic goal. It deprives citizens of control over their health
and their lives by depriving them of basic right to know information
that keeps them healthy and prevents disease.
year, more and more money is spent on a virtual potpourri of
money-seeking cancer foundations, and year after year cancer
incidence grows higher and higher. What little progress is reported
by the pollyannas of the cancer industry can primarily be attributable
to early detection and prevention - activities which cannot
begin to address, quantitatively, the large sums invested each
year in cancer research and treatment.
many will reject the reality of how the cancer industry really
works. A typical response might be "I don't believe this...I
don't want to hear it. It can't be true". Many refuse to
be torn apart and angered by the human suffering caused by the
horrendous activity of the cancer industry. Millions of people
have suffered and died painful deaths. Millions more will die
with this type of mentality, so how can it be true? Most will
never question why cancer patients are restricted to the approved
cancer therapies given by a medical community that has openly
admitted they do not know the cause of cancer.
been conditioned over time to accept cancer as a fact of life
(and death). Statistics tell us that cancer affects 1 in 3 of
the population. These frequently reported figures influence
the gradual acceptance of cancer as both a 'normal' disease
and one that must inevitably affect some of us.
insist that we must detect the cancer to prevent it. The slogan
'early detection is the best prevention' has attained the status
of a 'truth' in the public mind. In fact, early detection, by
whatever means, is only detection. For example, the conventional
medical community persists on the promotion of regular mammograms
as a 'preventive measure'. Mammography
is a tool for detecting breast problems, not for preventing
them. A new study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre
in Denmark found that mammograms may harm ten times as many
women as they help. The researchers examined the benefits and
negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on
500,000 women in the United States, Canada, Scotland and Sweden.
The study's authors found that for every 2,000 women who received
mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life
prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially harmful
The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between
disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why
an illness occurs, and trying to remove the conditions that
lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological
mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they
can interfere with them. These mechanisms, rather than the true
origins, are seen as the causes of disease in current medical
thinking and this confusion lies at the very centre of the conceptual
problems of contemporary medicine.
why contemporary western medicine continues to fail every cancer
patient it treats. For example, there is absolutely no reliable
scientific evidence showing that chemotherapy has any positive
effect whatsoever on cancer. Artificially reducing the size
of a tumor does nothing to reverse the physiology of cancer
in a patient's body. It doesn't initiate the healing that needs
to take place to reverse cancer and stay cancer free. It will
temporarily shrink a tumor, but it can never cure or improve
the quality of a cancer patient's life.
this establishment that continues to makes the rules (even if
not by law) for dealing with cancer have their precepts practically
frozen and unyielding. Surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy
are the cardinal principles by which the medical profession
and government funding dominate cancer therapy. So why do treatments
of this sort persist over more cost-effect preventive strategies?
of cancer has spawned a major world industry and it is unlikely
that such a massive and multi-faceted industry will welcome
the prospect of its own demise in the shape of primary prevention.
A firm alliance between the established cancer institutions
and the chemical, pharmaceutical and nuclear industries has
formed the medical-industrial complex. This complex will always,
by it's own omission, fail to embrace any successful program
for preventing cancer. What is stopping us [from getting serious
about prevention] is the almost suffocating hold the medical
industrial complex retains over cancer policy, and the hugely
powerful chemical industry's interest in protecting its products.
trust advice when it comes to us from government, especially
when it is reinforced by the media and cancer charities. That's
why the public continues to financially support such conglomerates
in the cancer industry through specialized non-profit groups
and societies. Most never question who the actual beneficiaries
of such groups are. However, nearly 100% of the funds donated
are used to recruit more cancer patients into highly-lucrative
treatments that do more harm than good. The following is one
such example of a grant list at the Komen for the Cure organization,
which details grant recepients for breast cancer https://www.komenphoenix.org/site/c.nsKZ....
Note that not a single grant is provided for nutritional education
or effective prevention strategies.
Most national governments establish cancer plans which target
lifestyle factors (exercise, diet, alcohol consumption and smoking)
as the key to cancer prevention. This narrow focus perpetuates
ignorance that dietary and environmental contaminants are significant
sources of human exposure to carcinogens which are impossible
to avoid. The focus on lifestyle often obscures cancer's environmental
roots. It presumes that the ongoing contamination of our air,
food, and water is an immutable fact of the human condition
to which we must accommodate ourselves.
the disinformation about sunlight
has reached a level of absurdity that's virtually unmatched
in the history of medicine. The cancer industry authorities
know that vitamin
D prevents almost 80% of all cancers. Since sunlight exposure
causes the skin to generate vitamin D in the human body (for
free, no less), the cancer industry has come to the realization
that in order for it to continue surviving, it has to scare
people away from anything that might actually prevent or cure
cancer. This is the primary objective behind the sunlight scare
campaigns. It's just a clever profit strategy to keep people
sick and diseased by enforcing widespread vitamin D deficiency
across the human population.
industry is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and also
has total control over
the news media due to the massive
amounts of advertising dollars spent by Big
Pharma. The media is the main source of public information
in today's world. It is an all-pervasive global force in society
and is becoming an integral part of the public debate about
cancer. However, the information industry - print and broadcast
- is largely controlled by market forces and these exert strong
influences on society, especially through advertising. This
can compromise editorial decision-making or it can obscure core
issues. For example, the survival of a women's magazine or a
TV channel in a very competitive marketplace will depend upon
revenue from advertisers selling products - often directed at
women - that should arguably be part of the debate on causes
of breast cancer. Therefore, it is impossible to get issues
like 'primary prevention' taken up by mainstream media. One
result, for example, is the widespread misconception that breast
cancer is a largely inherited disease.
has been one of the biggest barriers to primary prevention for
cancer. There is a widespread tendency (among scientists, industrialists
and politicians) to claim the need for more research when challenged
by prevention measures based on existing scientific knowledge.
In the case of cancer prevention this delaying tactic devalues
a century of scientific endeavour, leaving policy makers forever
in the grip of 'paralysis by analysis'. The illusion
of science finalized and published in books and journals
has led to a poor
track record of prevention and often devaluing natural treatments
and approaches that have been effective in practical applications
for hundreds, even thousands of years.
technology has now empowered a growing internet savvy public
to obtain the facts with just a few hours of research. Numerous
cancer cures are a few clicks away. Vitamin D, cat's claw herbs,
the Essiac formula, medicinal mushrooms, spirulina, cruciferous
vegetables, green tea, graviola herbs, Chinese medicinal herbs,
oxygen therapy, alkalizing water therapies and many more are
all promising alternatives, and possibly far more effective
than any existing conventional treatment.
easy solutions were found for a multitude of diseases because
they came from traditional cultures without commercialized medicine
(i.e. it came from an indigenous culture) and there were no
established, highly funded, self-serving organizations around
to suppress them. This is, admittedly, a simplification of the
historical facts, but the fundamental principle is not easily
debated. Money does not aid the search for cures; in fact, on
balance it actually acts more as a deterrent.
If the cancer industry wants to make themselves bigger (and
they will) then they must make the problem bigger. Big budgets
cannot be sustained in the presence of easy solutions. That
means that their very survival demands that they use whatever
means are at their disposal to suppress alternatives by rivals
that would prove compellingly contrary. Advancing their cause
requires a maximum, sustained effort to destroy those capable
of providing an end to their grand 'raison d'etre' and the many
growing, demanding, and expensive projects which it consequently
century of suppression by the cancer industry, and with the
help of the internet, a very small percentage of the population
is slowly and steadily being informed of the truth about cancer.
Many are now realizing that these highly funded establishments
set up to prevent or find a cancer cure will never effectively
work to that aim.
To ask the
multitude of cancer organizations, societies and charities to
find a cancer cure is to say, 'Now go. Be successful. And once
you have achieved your aim, promptly commit suicide.'
For once a real cancer cure or cures are announced, the need
for these organizations, which collect hundreds of billions
of dollars in the aggregate annually for treatment and research
- from governments, agencies, foundations, corporations, insurance
companies, and private individuals - all of them, without exception,
will have lost their reason for existence.
That is why a prevention strategy or cancer cure will never
come from their quarter: the very nature of their mandate is
a violation of Natural Law. It is a grand act of political expediency
and managerial stupidity that has made what should have been
an easy-to-solve medical puzzle and turned it into the single
greatest act of man-made carnage in history -- a fraud of unspeakable
magnitude that has spanned almost a century, and has needlessly
caused the premature deaths of tens of millions of people.