Home | News | Articles | Reviews | Contact Us| Order Book

 excerpt from

The Real War On Cancer p29-32
 

Full Scale War

On January 22^nd 1971, President Richard Nixon declared ‘The War on Cancer’ and promised a cure by 1977.  In a 2003 article in the L.A. Times, Chicago researcher Samuel Epstein revealed “after spending 30 years and some $50 billion, we are further from winning this war than when it was first declared. A recent government analysis of leading causes of mortality in the U.S. from 1973 to 1999 revealed that.… cancer deaths increased by 30 percentage points.” As an aside, have you ever noticed a strange correlation between politicians declaring war on something and an increase in its incidence (cancer, drugs, poverty, terror)? At first this may seem difficult to believe, but by observing the evidence to date, it could appear that the medical authorities and cancer organizations are more interested in expensive treatments such as chemotherapy, than prevention and natural, non-patentable cures.  When The American Cancer Society formed, it promised to close its doors the day a cure for cancer was found.  The persecution of those who appeared to have the answer for cancer could lead one to speculate that those in the world’s richest private charity aren’t anxious to see this day come too soon.

Perhaps you can now see why two-time Nobel winner Dr. Linus Pauling believed that “the war on cancer is largely a fraud”.   Not everybody is as diplomatic and gentle with words as the esteemed Dr. Pauling.  In 1975, Dr. James Watson, who co-discovered the DNA double helix and spent two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board was asked what he thought of the National Cancer Program, his prompt response was, “It’s a bunch of shit.”²¹

It must be acknowledged that it is possible for a charlatan to make false claims for a product and try to sell it to the unsuspecting public. There is an important role to be played by an organization such as the FDA which could act as an organization to give new treatments an inexpensive and fair evaluation.  However, one must question whether it should have the monopolistic power it has today, since it’s so closely tied to the enormously wealthy pharmaceutical industry.  According to former legislator Daniel Haley, an estimated 65% of FDA employees take jobs with the pharmaceutical companies when they retire from the FDA and we wonder why the FDA persecutes non-orthodox medicines.

The cancer treatments mentioned above need to undergo further large scale testing in order to help convince the public and medical establishment that they are more effective and safer than most of the orthodox methods.  This testing needs to be carried out by scientists independent of the cancer societies and cancer organizations to avoid a conflict of interest.  If everybody knew that cancer can be cured using documented treatments available today, these colossal institutions would no longer have a purpose.  It seems apparent that there is no universal cure for all cancers. One method may work well with certain types of cancer, but poorly with others. In some cases, for example some childhood cancers, conventional methods may be the preferred option—but they should not be the only option considered. Over forty patented drug treatments have been approved by the F.D.A., while not a single non-patented alternative treatment has been accepted²².

None of the unorthodox treatments mentioned above have fully proved their efficacy in clinical trials - usually because they haven’t had a real opportunity. You’ve seen several examples of how alternative treatments were marginalized and refused a proper clinical trial.  Thankfully this situation is changing. As the public interest in complimentary medicine has been skyrocketing, government agencies have had to follow suit. The National Cancer Institute has begun allocating a fraction of their resources to evaluating alternatives, although it may take several years before we see any conclusive results.

Is the American Cancer Society Looking Out For You?

Most people want to believe that the American Cancer Society (ACS) is fighting tooth and nail to prevent cancer and find a cure as quickly as possible. Many people feel guilty if they don’t contribute to this association and help eradicate cancer. However, the next time you are asked to donate your money to an ACS walk, run, or jog, there are some shocking facts you may want to consider.

The ACS has actively campaigned against laws that ban the addition of carcinogens to food. For example, they have supported the pesticide industry by reassuring the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe—even for babies. In 1993, the ACS sided with the chemical industry in disputing the claims of a television documentary exposing the dangers of pesticides to children. Distraught producer Marty Koughan discovered that the ACS were “willing partners in the deception, and were in fact doing a favor for a friend—by flaking for the agrichemical industry.” ²²

Executives from the chemical and drug industries often sit on the boards of the major cancer associations. In a typical example, the ACS board of trustees included David R. Bethune, President of Lederle Laboratories, a division of American Cyanamid Company, which makes chemical fertilizers and herbicides.

Since 1984, the National Breast Cancer Awareness month has been sponsored by Zeneca, makers of a breast cancer “prevention” drug, with $400 million in annual sales. This drug company has influence over every poster, publication, leaflet and commercial produced by this ACS campaign. In addition, Zeneca’s parent company, Imperial Chemical industries, makes breast-cancer-inducing chemicals. It’s no surprise that there is not a single mention of the need to avoid carcinogenic industrial chemicals during National Breast Cancer Awareness month.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer Revisited, pointed out that “The highly biased ACS witch-hunts against alternative practitioners is in striking contrast to its extravagant and uncritical endorsement of conventional toxic chemotherapy.” A whole book could easily be devoted to how the ACS is closely aligned with drug companies and the chemical industry. In 1992, The Chronicle of Philanthropy stated that the ACS was “more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.” After discovering what the worlds wealthiest charity is really up to behind the scenes, you may prefer to donate your money to an association such as Dr. Epstein’s Cancer Prevention Coalition—which is focused on helping people avoid the known causes of cancer. ^{(www.PreventCancer.com)}