I just had to repost a previous post on Cancer Research, triggered by this first article on the cancer research fraud. It’s truly simple: the cancer research industry is hell bent on not finding a cure, and rather on furthering their fraudulent research. Whilst those who do true research and find cures are gagged.
I can share with you that I have had som experience of the funeral industry, and have seen many grieving folk donating loadsa hard-earned cash to Cancer Research UK et al, thinking they were serving the memory of their loved one well. But people need to wake up to what they’re giving money to.
And it’s not just the cancer research industry but many other charities where one could question their true agenda.
Apologies for the spurious characters in the post at the bottom – one minor sacrifice of the fab server migration recently.
~~ Start ~~
Andre Evans – Activist Post
It’s fairly evident that corruption pervades many facets of our society in this day and age, with profits driving major pharmaceutical companies and various political objectives. But just how far does this type of fraud reach?
It seems that it extends as far as cancer research, with monetary incentives and smudged scientific results shaking the very foundation of cancer research. Recently, the Mayo Clinic determined that ten years worth of cancer research has been made useless due to such fraud.
The nature of the medical establishment today is unsettling, to say the least. Doctors of all kinds have been trained to prescribe double-edged medical “solutions” to their patients, draining the finances of patients through side-effect ridden pharmaceuticals and invasive surgeries. Mainstream medical science is increasingly being found to be fraudulent, but many still see doctors and medical officials as “experts” that can do no wrong.
The entire multi-billion dollar cancer industry is based on fraudulent cancer research
Particularly in regards to cancer research, many wealthy and poor individuals alike offer generous donations to cancer research organizations, utterly confident that their actions are the most noble.
These individuals think that they are funding the “cure” for cancer, though they are simply funding a multi-billion dollar “cancer industry machine” that will never truly end the disease — it is far too profitable. Even as they produce results in “scientific studies,” it is extremely important to analyze these studies and what they are accomplishing.
Using the guise of “established” medical science, these widely accepted studies are disseminated through medical journals and accepted as the ultimate authority by many. In the case of professor Sheng Wang of Boston University School of Medicine Cancer Research Center, his cancer research was found to be misconducted, fraudulent, and contain altered results. What is unsettling is the fact that his research had been previously accepted and used as a cornerstone from which to base all subsequent cancer research.
With false foundations, you cannot create a proverbial structure with structure integrity. Even the practice of peer-reviewed study is in question, as many drug companies have been found to fabricate their own research and experimental studies in order to produce the desired results needed to sell their products. One such example involves Dr. Scott Reuben, a well-respected anesthesiologist who was the former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield Massachusetts. It later came out that Dr. Reuben fabricated the data for 21 studies, all of which were doctored to deceive consumers into thinking drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex were safe.
Not all studies are fraudulent, but when the motivation for these doctors and professors is fiscal, it turns the current medical paradigm into a war zone. As a consumer, it is important for you to do your own research on the harsh side effects of traditional cancer treatment methods such as chemotherapy.
As millions are pumped into the phony cancer industry that thrives on fraudulent research, it is important to remember thatfree alternative health options do exist. Utilizing natural sweeteners, vitamin D therapy, and eliminating artificial sweeteners are extremely simple ways to effectively prevent cancer and potentially begin reversing it.
Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.
~~ End ~~
I was typing another response to the person who commented on the Water-Dioxin-Cancer post and it ended up so long that it was better off as another post, so here goes:
This is not intended for the person who commented specifically, his comment just triggered the following thoughts and questions.
The issue of whether or not the water post is a hoax raises some much wider questions about cancer and its research.
When I was 15, I organised a 24 hour sponsored badminton for Cancer Reasearch UK (CR) and raised a bit of cash for their work. Now, many years later they have still not found a cure for cancer and they are receiving ever more money than before – Â£446 million in 2009/2010 to be precise, all from the public’s hard-earned cash (that’s a huge amount of cash from the generous public in just one year! Source: http://aboutus.cancerresearchuk.org/how-we-fundraise/how-much-we-raise/).
This does raise questions…
– Over the years that CR has been going, they must have therefore received money totally many Â£Billions. How many more billions will it take for them to find a cure? As Dr Mercola states on his website: “One would think that applying all that modern science has to offer over the last 40 years would have brought us far closer to eradicating cancer.” So why so much money, why so many years and why no cure? Surely that’s what they (purported) to start off life as – to find a cure and eliminate cancer?
– What kind of cures are they seeking? Are they focusing more on seeking cures for the symptoms of cancer or of cancer itself? Have they looked at more natural substances that may cure cancer? I hear baking soda, clinical iodine and cannabis may be very useful for cancer treatment. Two of these have doctors behind the ideas. But these ideas are maybe not profitable enough for them, cannabis for one, that grows freely and thereforte cannot be controlled. I wonder if CR is looking into these sorts of ideas? Probably not.
Not long ago I came across an Indian woman in the US who had been cancer-free (breast) for four years, having eliminated products in the home and body products that contain chemicals, got rid of her microwave for eg, went for healing and release sessions and generally cleaned up her life. She declined conventional treatment. 4 years is not bad an achievement. So with results like these why doesn’t CR and other such ‘charities’ look at what is working amongst folk out there? Doesn’t that make sense? Common sense?
This comment on the CR website: “We have saved millions of lives with our groundbreaking work preventing, diagnosing and treating cancer” … raises the question of the proportion of spend across these three areas (preventing, diagnosing and treating), and whether they are not in fact spending more on diagnosing and treating than on preventing. After all, if they found a cure they’d be out of jobs…. And saving millions of lives begs the question – for how long are these lives being saved? A few extra months? A handful more years? How many people have actually remained totally cancer free after conventional treatment, for like, letâ€™s say 40 years, the amount of time CR has probably been going? So if CR is allowed to â€˜surviveâ€™ that long with other peopleâ€™s money, then why do those with cancer not have the same privilege given that the shed loads of money entrusted to them is for this purpose? Or maybe cancer is so very complex…Hmmm.
A possible answer to some of these questions is here, from this site: http://www.zeropoint.org/2011/04-10.html:
I only just happened upon it, haven’t read too much else on the site.
“In actuality, Cancer Research UK almost exclusively supports conventional cancer treatments, focusing almost entirely on chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, biological therapies and hormone therapy. Some lip-service is paid to a few complementary cancer treatments on their website, but the funding for alternative and complementary cancer treatment approaches is dismally small in comparison to that given to conventional treatments. Cancer Research UK’s justification for focusing almost entirely on conventional treatments is given on its website:
“All conventional cancer treatments have been tested thoroughly in clinical trials to prove that they work for specific types of cancer. The aim of treatment is to kill or remove, and hopefully cure, the cancer. Or to control the cancer for as long as possible if it is not curable.”
From their perspective, it is only conventional cancer treatments that have been tested properly in clinical trials and work for “specific” types of cancer. Whereas, in actuality conventional cancer treatments have a dismal success record, with the cure rate (5-years in remission) for chemotherapy, for example, down at just a few percent. But the way that Cancer Research UK carry on in their promotions, you would think that they have helped to win the war on cancer.”
In many such institutions who purport to do good work, (and no doubt they do SOME) one wonders what their real intentions are. Is it truly the health of the people who pay their wages (through the massive total donations) or is their own self-interest and future funding and sustainability what drives their decision-making more often than not? Surely the idea is to find a cure ie the most healthy means to elminate cancer, not the most costly? Has to be said. Everyone thinks it (well those who think…). Everyone knows it. People are losing trust in big institutions who say one thing and do another whilst raking it in.
It is a delicate topic I know. I have a cousin myself who has just been diagnosed with cancer and is starting conventional treatment. I’ve sent some info through about what I’ve learnt about alternatives but it’s not easy to make choices. There really needs to be more mainstream support of alternative methods, it’s hard to make a choice to ‘go it alone’ against what doctors are recommending when you’re faced with a possible terminal situation and not enough backup from the medical field for alternative treatments.
I’m also not saying CR does not help those with cancer in some ways, no doubt it does, and does so for many.
But what of prevention? What of an actual, simple cure? Are we saying that in 40 years or however long CR has been going and after so much money received they haven’t got a cure yet? Yup, it seems that way. Are we saying theyâ€™re going to continue to seek massive funds yet are refusing to spend sufficient amounts on complementary treatments? Yup, I think we are. Are we saying that even as the use of complementary approaches has increased tremendously in the last 20 years, CR do not respect the publicâ€™s wishes and interest in more natural cures? Yup, it would seem that way. And are we saying that many, many people feel the big pharmaceuticals want to make more people take more of their pills rather than become healthy and pill-free? I think that could be true too…
And there’s another question. Is cancer only about 50 years or so old, and if so what caused it, or has it really been around for donkeys’ generations? It would be nice to see some definitive answers on that one. It did to suddenly appear out of nowhere…
Thus it is no wonder that people are issuing health-related info that they find eg the originating post about water, and who can blame them/us. Besides not drinking water left in your car for weeks is more or less common sense, even if it’s not true it leads to cancer (but can we really be sure?)…it’s a minor matter compared with the questions raised about CR above. Hoax is a term like â€˜conspiracy theoryâ€™ â€“ it begs the question of who the real, intentional hoaxers are. When something is transparent it’s transparent, no such questions arise. When something’s not transparent, it’s just a matter of time before people demand tranparency.
Oh and thereâ€™s some talk of Cancer Research trying to censor information about cancer on Wikileaks. Now why would they want to do that. If they had all the answers about cancer noone would have cancer. It’s simple really, if you play God with cancer, telling people what they should and shouldn’t believe about cancer, you need to be able to show what you’re made of and come up with a cure, not just treatments that add further terrible stress on those who are dealing with the challenges of cancer itself already.
Interestingly, Wikileaks says about CR: “Its aim is to reduce the number of deaths from cancer.”
Just wondering why finding a cure doesn’t figure in their mission statement. CR is the “world’s largest independent cancer research charity” and it seems a no-brainer that one would actually look for elimination not just makeing things better…
It seems I am not alone in having such reservations, see these links:
A Facebook page about the cancer charities:
Ok, I’m done for a late Saturday morning…
Comments, as always, welcome.
~~ End ~~
Latest posts by Reena Gagneja (see all)
- The highly profitable cancer business and the treatments on offer – what would you do if you got cancer? - March 28, 2016
- Dr Eben Alexander – Life after death is real and consciousness survives death of the body - March 11, 2016
- Bashar – profound speech (video): you, now and eternity - January 25, 2016