"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that
the major cancer research organizations 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 focused 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 organizations.

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. . . It'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 . . . If 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
legalized 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 organization, 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 organizations
that you won't donate to them until they change their approach to one which
is focused 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.
 

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.