Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews

Barriers To Prevention: Why Conventional Cancer Research Does Not Find 'The Cure'

For almost 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 cancer"?

The 'cancer 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.

As major 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.

Evidence 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 after 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.

When informed, 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.

We have 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.

Doctors 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 treatments."

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.

This is 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.

At present, 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?

The disease 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.

We generally 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 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.

For example, 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.

The cancer 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.

Proscrastination 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.

Ironically, 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.

Historically, 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 spawns.

After a 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.

1. Prevent and Cure Cancer By Eliminating the Causes
Author: Ron Gdanski, B. A. Published by Nadex Publishing, Division of Nadex Industries Ltd.
2. Greg Caton - Alpha Omega Labs, Guayaquil, Ecuador
3. The Cancer Industry - Nutrition Health Review, 1990
4. Breast Cancer UK - Ethics Advocacy Prevention
5. Ty M. Bollinger - Cancer - Step Outside the Box


STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter