In 2016, approximately 1,685,210 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States alone, and approximately 600,000 people will die from the disease. The number of new cancer cases is 454.8 per 100,000 men and women per year, based on cases from 2008-2010.
Men have almost a 50 percent chance of contracting the disease at some point within their lifetime, and women have a 1/3 chance. Pretty crazy isn’t it? (source)
In a time where so much information is coming to light, challenging the belief systems of so many, it’s important to keep an open mind to new information to help us see through what’s really been happening on our planet. It’s no secret that a small group of corporations dominate almost every aspect of our lives, from energy to education, all the way to modern day healthcare.
The Cancer Industry
One aspect of healthcare is the cancer industry, and while people still scoff at the idea that there could be a suppression of cures and a lack of funding for proven alternative treatments, this is a fact that continues to come to light and is necessary for people to acknowledge if we are going to move forward and save millions of lives.
It’s important to accept the fact that, as Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry told us, that “most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)
Pauling’s ‘anger’ with regards to cancer research is well documented, especially in his book, How To Live Longer and Feel Better.
Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and is also a former editor of its journal, publicly stated in a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that:
“My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.” (source)
These few quotes won’t tell you everything about what is going on, but the documentary below will. It’s a 2 hour segment from the film, The Truth About Cancer.
The segment below features interviews with renowned health professionals from around the world, so you can hear it directly from the horses mouth.
Most health professionals who are skeptical of the information below, often haven’t done the research for themselves to stay updated with what is going on. Real medical education goes well beyond medical school. As illustrated in the video below, medical school is largely a brainwashing tool for pharmaceutical medicines. This is becoming more evident as information keeps emerging that the average health professional has no idea about.
We got, hours and hours and hours on how to use, basically patented medicines, which as you know, are what usually goes on a prescription pad as a molecule that can be patented which means that it’s not found in nature….And that’s what we get educated in.
– Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, M.D. Medical Director and Founder
The doctor is brainwashed when he/she gets out of medical school because the medical school has too much subsidization of the professors who are being paid by the drug company, so the professor never teachers any student in medical school, why don’t you try vitamin C, they’re going to tell them the latest drug.
– Dr. Gary F. Gordon
Unfortunately, doctors today are simply taught how to prescribe drugs. Although their knowledge of the human body and how it operates is fairly good, and they often have the best intentions at heart, they are often being used to push an agenda, and it’s one of the primary causes for the rise of disease in the past few decades. In fact, medical error is now the third leading cause of death in the US.
Doctors get paid to write prescriptions. Over a century ago, the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations started to engineer the curriculum. They put their money into drug-based research and made that the main focus of “healthcare”.
Since then, the Rockefeller’s and banking elite have been able to control and profit from the drug industry. The AMA – which is the largest association of physicians in the U.S. – enforces the drug-treatment paradigm by heavily lobbying Congress and publishing one of the most influential journals, JAMA, which is largely funded by pharmaceutical advertisers. It is also engaged in suppressing alternative health treatments, such as the Royal Rife cancer cure.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
There is a problem that’s well known in the medical community, which is why John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated that most current published research findings are false.
This was more than 10 years ago, fast forward to today where a more recent ‘cry’ to the public masses came from Dr. Richard Horton, current editor-in-chief of The Lancet. He stated that half of all the published literature could be false. (source)
Check out the Truth About Cancer series for more.
It’s hard to believe that approximately one in every two people will develop some form of cancer within their lifetime. As a result, cancer awareness has skyrocketed. Millions of people around the globe are helping to raise money and awareness for cancer and cancer treatment. This overwhelming support from the public just goes to show how many good hearts are out there, and in no way should we dismiss that generous spirit. There are, however, some important facts relating to this disease about which many people are still unaware.
While it is of course disturbing that cancer rates are at all time time high, the prevalence of this disease is causing people to take notice and to question, which is always a good thing. People are becoming more aware of the disease, looking into alternative treatment options and trying to determine the cause of this illness. People are starting to wonder why so many of us are so sick. So despite how gloomy it may appear, there is hope for all of us.
The 5 facts about cancer below are indeed disturbing, but what’s even more disturbing is the fact hat nobody even talks about them. If we want to get to the root of this disease, ignorance is not the answer. Hopefully this article helps you learn some important information about cancer that you probably won’t hear much about in the mainstream.
Questionable Cancer Research/Fraud
Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has revealed: “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.” (source)(source)
He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, and was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry Division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all in the scientific field, so his words are not to be taken lightly.
And it’s not just Pauling making these kinds of statements. Many other well respected scientists, who are definitely in a position to know about this type of thing, have made similar statements. For example, Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, said that:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal Of Medicine. (source)
Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of another one of the world’s most best known medical journals, The Lancet, recently published a statement expressing that a large quantity of published peer-reviewed science is actually completely false. He revealed:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (source)
A lot of the ‘credible’ research out there has been supported and funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, and much of it conflicts with the work of independent scientists from all over the world.
The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). – Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer
People Are Actually Having Success With Alternative Treatments
A growing trend amongst people who have been diagnosed with cancer is to seek out alternative treatment, and this is largely because so many people have reported solid success rates. We can also attribute this shift to the vast amount of published scientific literature pointing people in this direction. For example, here is a quick video clip of Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist who explains the power of THC. Other ingredients within cannabis have also been shown to annihilate cancer tumours.Here is an older article with just a few out of hundreds of studies sourced, just to give you an idea. It’s worrying that no human clinical trials have been conducted on the use of cannabis to treat cancer, despite the fact that scientists have known for decades that it is effective.
Mykala Comstock is a wonderful example of cannabis’ efficacy; she had T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, a very rare and aggressive form of childhood leukaemia. In July of 2012, doctors discovered a basketball-sized mass of lymphoblasts in her chest. Her mass was so large that she was not able to be sedated for risk of death from the pressure on her esophagus and heart.
More people are to turning to other herbal remedies as well. Research has shown that artemisinin, found in various plants, can also kill cancer cells.
Dietary changes are also taking a more prominent role in alternative cancer treatment. Chris Wark, a man who had stage 3 colon cancer, credits his recovery to a vegan diet.
The point is, these stories are out there, and so is the science to back them up. It makes you wonder why these aren’t considered mainstream treatment suggestions? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that these treatments cannot be patented?
There are only two approved treatments for cancer — radiation and chemotherapy.
Here is a clip from the Thrive documentary that gives us all something to think about.
Our Toxic Environment
“How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons?” – Jane Goodall
Billions of pounds of toxic chemicals are sprayed on our food and in the environment every single year. We’re talking about organophosphates, chemicals that were used to kill people in warfare during WW2. After decades of spraying, a number of alarming studies have been published which lead to many of these chemicals being completely banned.
Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend. – October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)
Yet only recently did the World Health Organization admit that glyphosate, the most active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, can cause cancer. (source) A number of countries around the world have also banned glyphosate. Sri Lanka, for example, decided to completely ban itafter their scientists discovered that it was linked to chronic kidney disease. (source)(source) It has also been completely banned in various countries across Europe.
As far as pesticide accumulation in the body goes, a recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults by 90 percent. (source)
Cynthia Curl, an assistant professor in the School of Allied Health Sciences Department of Community and Environmental Health at Boise State University, recently published a pesticide exposure study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Results of her research indicated that among individuals eating similar amounts of vegetables and fruits, the ones who reported eating organic produce had significantly lower OP pesticide exposure than those who normally consume conventionally grown produce.
These studies are important because the pesticides sprayed on our food are also very toxic and have been linked to a number of diseases, like cancer. Why are we consuming chemicals that were used to kill people in warfare? How can we possibly justify such irresponsible behaviour?
And the problem extends further than simply what is being put on our food. Our food itself has been genetically modified by biotech companies, to the point where it bears little resemblance to its natural form, and is equally unrecognizable by our bodies. These companies incorporate genes from one species into a completely unrelated species. (source) This, according to many, is bad science.
The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes in what we call a vertical fashion … within a species. What biotechnology allows us to do is to take genes from this organism and move it in what we call horizontally into a totally unrelated species…. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard for the biological constraints…. It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principles governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion. – David Suzuki, geneticist, activist, and environmentalist (source)
Furthermore, no studies have been cited by global health authorities which prove the longterm safety of GMOs on our health. This is not good science, and we know for a fact that GMOs are harmful to other animals which we have tested them on. For example, the chronic toxicity study examined the health impacts of eating commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, on rats.The study found severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup — levels which were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups. (source)
You can read more about that here.
Other studies have found issues with GM foods and pesticides appearing in maternal and fetal blood.
As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe. – Jane Goodall (source)
These examples barely even scratch the surface of carcinogens we are exposed to. Cosmetics, flame retardants, everyday household products — these are all a concern. It’s not a mystery why cancer rates are so high, but we never really talk about the issue in this way. Waster fluoridation is another example. Fluoride was recently categorized officially as a neurotoxin.
In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. There are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions. This amounts to public murder on a grand scale, it is a public crime. … It is some of the most conclusive bits of scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research. (source) – Dr. Dean Burk, Biochemist, Founder of Biotin, and Former Chief Chemist at the National Cancer Institute of Heal
Cancer Charity Fraud
The Brooklyn-based National Children’s Leukemia Foundation has been shut down. This comes years after they raised millions of dollars through professionally run fundraisers. They lured people in, claiming that the funds would be used to conduct cancer research and locate bone marrow donors, while they ran their “Make a Dream Come True” campaign. (source)(source)
This is disturbing information, but it’s not the first time that a major cancer charity has been called into question, not by a long shot. For example, a complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission describes four connected groups, all with cancer in their name, as “sham charities,” saying they instead “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation.” One of those names was the Cancer Fund of America Inc. These groups stand accused of taking in almost 200 million dollars. (source)
You can read more about that here .
It’s remarkable how much time we spend raising money for cancer treatment without ever speaking about cancer prevention. With out toxic environment, there are a number of things you can do to minimize your risk of developing cancer.
So what can you do? Stop buying household cleaning products with toxic, carcinogenic chemicals. Do your research, ask around. Stop eating foods that are sprayed with pesticides, or at least properly soak and clean your fruits and vegetables for a decent amount of time before consuming them. Indeed, eat more fruits and vegetables to begin with. Exercise more, engage in activities/experiences that make you feel good and bring you joy — these are all simple steps we can take to show our bodies the love they deserve.
Again, I would emphasize diet, as a lot of what we are put into our bodies on a weekly basis isn’t healthy at all.
“Studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.” – Harvard Medical School (source)
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Studies Show What A Whole Foods Vegan Diet Does For People With Diabetes
- The Facts:
Multiple studies have shown that a whole foods, plant-based diet can help manage, prevent, and, in some cases, even reverse diabetes.
- Reflect On:
Why is dietary intervention not a priority of conventional doctors? Especially when it can be much more beneficial to the patient than medication?
Food truly is medicine, and nutrition is a great way to combat multiple diseases. What’s extremely confusing is why so many doctors still choose to prescribe medication first, without considering the power of nutrition. Many doctors are not even aware of the power of nutrition and its ability to heal diseases, and this is probably because they know next to nothing about it given that they learn nothing about it in medical school.
However, things are changing. There are an abundance of doctors who are not prescribing medication when it’s not needed, and instead prescribing a proper diet. Many of them are starting to educate themselves using the literature and science surrounding nutrition. It’s not only doctors, but patients are choosing to self educate themselves now as well.
When it comes to the medical industry, self education is important, given the fact that “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.” – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)
Not long ago, Dr. Asseem Malhotra, a well-known Doctor in Britain, had some choice words to say in front of the European Parliament about modern-day medical education and the overall knowledge doctors possess. He’s one of many who continues to emerge and speak out. You can read more about that here.
When it comes to type 2 diabetes, it’s one of the diseases that can easily be managed with a proper diet. The undue influence the pharmaceutical industry has on the medical industry and doctors’ lack of understanding of nutrition is why, I believe, more than 370 million people around the world suffer from diabetes, and approximately 100 million Americans have it or are likely to get it.
It’s firmly established in scientific literature and quite clear now that moving to a whole-food, plant-based diet can drastically reduce the symptoms of type 1 diabetes and can even help manage, or in many cases completely reverse, type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes. Giving up animal products and processed foods helps as well, and there is an abundance of research that shows this.
Perhaps one of the most important pieces of evidence is the fact that there are real life success stories. Forks over Knives has a plethora of examples and real-life case studies that support the notion that eliminating animal products and following a healthy, whole-foods diet can make it easier to live with diabetes.
In 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a study that showed plant-based diets can lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by a third. This involves simply switching out animal products for plant-based alternatives. A whole-foods, plant-based diet is rich in beneficial dietary fiber, antioxidants, and micronutrients, and low in saturated fats. This is excellent for overall health outcomes, whether they’re related to diabetes or not.
Multiple studies have shown that red and processed meats (also recently linked to cancer by the WHO), as well as animal protein in general, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. In omnivore populations, the risk of diabetes is doubled compared with vegans. Another study found that eating meat once a week or more over a 17-year period increased the risk of diabetes by a startling 74%. A follow up study was conducted and found that increasing red meat intake by more than just half a serving per day was closely associated with an almost 50% increased risk of contracting diabetes over four years.
Removing animal products and shifting to a diet consisting of whole and minimally processed plant foods can reduce the problems created by type 1 and type 1.5 autoimmune diabetes big time. Although there’s no cure for this type of diabetes, the right diet has plenty of benefits. Cyrus Khambatta, PhD, writes that following a low-fat, whole-foods plant-based lifestyle can:
- Boost insulin sensitivity and reduce insulin use by more than 40 percent after six months.
- Lead to more predictable blood glucose, making it easier to manage diabetes.
- Increase blood flow to tissues in the body and reduce the likelihood of diabetes-related nerve damage.
- Reduce the burden on the kidneys, decreasing the chances of getting kidney disease.
People have also reversed type 2 diabetes with a plant-based diet and fasting.
For more on that you can refer to the article linked below:
Here are some other related articles you might be interested in as well:
The takeaway here is to recognize that a whole foods, plant-based diet can be life changing. There are a number of studies that have emerged and continue to emerge showing this, while many more show a strong connection between various diseases and eating meat. It makes one ponder, are humans even designed/supposed to eat meat, or has this simply been the tactic of clever marketing by the big food industry? Something to think about.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer
- The Facts:
This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.
- Reflect On:
The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.
Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’
Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’
But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.
Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer
A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.
Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”
Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.” That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.
Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).
What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?
What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.
Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer
It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.
This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.
If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?
One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.
This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.
No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:
- Chemical exposure
- Radiation exposure
- Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
- Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
- Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
- Lack of sleep
- Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes
Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer. And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.
In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.
Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic: 4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.
*Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’
Originally published: 2017-12-04
Article udpated: 2019-07-19
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.
Link to the original article
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play
[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]
The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.
Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
An exclusive and dependent relationship
Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicine, drugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.
In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.
Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.
In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:
- Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
- Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
- Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.
Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”
… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”
In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:
[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.
In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.
The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”
Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.
Debased and biased results
The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”
Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.
Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”
… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.
In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.
Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.
In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.
In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”
In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.
The censorship tsunami
Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:
- The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
- The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
- Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.
Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
“Sacrificial Virgins” – A Must-See Film About Young Girls Being Severely Damaged By HPV Gardasil Vaccines
“I would never give my daughter, or my son the shot… This is a massive PR event by the company...
The Dark Secrets Behind The Pope’s Audience Hall (It’s a Giant Reptilian)
The Pope's Audience Hall is a building designed to look exactly like a reptile. In essence, the Pope speaks to...