Cancer Scams /cancerscams Natural Health News & Self-Reliance Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:35:39 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 Heart damage caused by chemotherapy keeps rising rapidly… chemo is poison /cancerscams/2016-12-28-incidents-of-cardiotoxicity-and-heart-damage-induced-by-chemotherapy-rapidly-rising/ /cancerscams/2016-12-28-incidents-of-cardiotoxicity-and-heart-damage-induced-by-chemotherapy-rapidly-rising/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-12-28-incidents-of-cardiotoxicity-and-heart-damage-induced-by-chemotherapy-rapidly-rising Yet another disturbing warning has emerged about the toxic side effects of chemotherapy drugs, in this instance as a risk factor for cardiotoxicity, a condition which is apparently more pronounced for those diagnosed with diabetes.

Chemotherapy is an invasive and toxic treatment meant to kill cancer cells in the body. Unfortunately, chemo doesn’t make a distinction between a cancerous or a healthy cell. As a result, it kills all living matter in its way as is well known from various unfortunate horror stories.

Chemo drugs are known to undermine the immune system. Natural News previously asserted that chemotherapy only makes tumors recede temporarily, and subsequently the cancer spreads throughout the body with a vengeance. Big Pharma continues to put virtually all or most of its anti-cancer eggs into the chemotherapy basket, however.

Earlier this year, a study from the UK suggested that about 8 percent of lung cancer patients and approximately 3 percent of breast cancer patients died within just one month of embarking on a course of chemotherapy, although for some hospitals, the mortality rate was substantially higher. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has separately put chemotherapy on its list of ineffectual treatments.

In findings presented at a European Society of Cardiology conference in Germany, EuroEcho-Imaging 2016, cardiologist Ana Catarina Gomes suggested that heart damage can be a side effect of chemotherapy drugs known as anthracyclines.

Dr. Gomes claimed that reports of cardiotoxicity (toxic effect to the heart) are on the rise “mainly because a smaller proportion of patients now die from cancer.”

“In the coming years this cardiotoxicity looks set to increase the burden of heart failure in cancer survivors.”

The doctor added that potential heart failure can be avoided through careful monitoring by healthcare professionals especially in the first year of chemo treatment “when up to 80% of the systolic dysfunction develops.”

The study followed 83 patients in their early 50s on average undergoing chemotherapy in a hospital in Portugal, 54 with breast cancer, 20 with lymphoma, and nine with gastric cancer. Data was gathered on a series of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension and diabetes as well as past heart conditions. Among the subjects, 31 percent had high blood pressure, seven percent were diabetic, and 15 percent smoked. Doctors treated them either doxorubicin or epirubicin.

The Hospital Garcia de Orta administered echocardiograms to the patients in the study before, during, and after chemotherapy.

“Patients with diabetes showed more signs of the damage that’s considered an early warning sign of heart failure. But the study did not prove that the blood sugar disease caused more damage from chemotherapy,” HealthDay News explained.

The study concluded that “Cardiotoxicity can be a side effect of chemotherapy (CT) with anthracyclines and other drugs,” and called for mandatory echocardiographic morning for those on chemo. “Chemotherapy with anthracyclines was associated with progressive and significant left ventricular dysfunction, starting as early as the first cycle.”

In a news release, Gomes cautioned that “Cancer patients should strictly control cardiovascular risk factors with lifestyle changes and, if necessary, with medication. But, of course, cardiovascular prevention should never postpone the beginning of chemotherapy, since treating cancer is the first priority.”

Sources:

PreventDisease.com

HealthDayNews.com

UPI.com

 

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-12-28-incidents-of-cardiotoxicity-and-heart-damage-induced-by-chemotherapy-rapidly-rising/feed/ 0
Forbes.com hit piece on Natural News backfires: Health Ranger confirmed as world’s most powerful foe of corporate science fraud /cancerscams/2016-12-28-forbes-com-hit-piece-on-natural-news-backfires-health-ranger-powerful-foe-of-corporate-science-fraud-propaganda/ /cancerscams/2016-12-28-forbes-com-hit-piece-on-natural-news-backfires-health-ranger-powerful-foe-of-corporate-science-fraud-propaganda/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-12-28-forbes-com-hit-piece-on-natural-news-backfires-health-ranger-powerful-foe-of-corporate-science-fraud-propaganda Two years ago, I exposed Forbes.com writer Jon Entine as a violent psychopath who physically attacked his wife and committed widespread journalistic fraud to push Monsanto propaganda.

Under pressure for hiring such a reprobate, Forbes.com fired Entine, who has ties to conservative institutions like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and George Mason University.

Entine has a long history of literally fabricating false accusations against critics of Monsanto. During one “investigation” of a body care manufacturing company, he walked into their warehouse, knocked over bottles of their product, then called the authorities to report a dangerous spill to try to shut them down.

Forbes.com and Jon Entine share a common philosophy of deep deception. Both are malicious journo-terrorists, and both take money from powerful corporate interests (like the biotech industry) to smear, slander and defame critics who threaten the profits of their corporate sponsors. In an email to me in 2013, Forbes.com legal counsel openly admitted they have no responsibility to make sure the things they print are true. And they claim to be able to print outright lies under protection from the DMCA.

Forbes was purchased by the communist Chinese

Forbes is a failing propaganda mouthpiece for globalist corporations like Monsanto and various drug and pesticide companies. In 2014, Forbes was on the verge of imploding, so it desperately sought a buyer to bail it out and keep it running.

It found a buyer in communist China, where Hong Kong-based Integrated Asset Management, founded by Tak Cheung Yam, threw down $300 million for the publisher. Steve Forbes hailed the purchase because it traded a collapsing propaganda rag for $300 million real money. (I have to agree with Steve Forbes that he made out like a bandit.)

This means Forbes.com is majority owned by the communist Chinese.

No wonder the publication hates American patriots (and truth in general). Now, it functions more like a Red China propaganda rag than anything resembling a legitimate news organization. While much of the left-wing media in America is currently accusing independent media of being run by the Russians, the deeper truth is that Forbes.com is run by the communist Chinese, and one of its propaganda goals has been to target and attack U.S. patriots who support the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and scientific truth.

Forbes.com’s hit piece on Natural News BACKFIRES

Every few months, Forbes.com runs a hit piece on Natural News, targeting me personally by gathering up a slew of circular logic quotes from representatives of the biotech, pharma and vaccine industries who ridiculously proclaim they all have a monopoly on science. Their latest hit piece claims Natural News and the Health Ranger are such an extreme danger to the very fabric of science in our world that we must be stopped at all costs.

They’ve even rolled out a new hashtag: #NaturalNonsense… hoping it will spread faster than the Zika virus so that vaccine companies can keep receiving billions of dollars in government money to roll out more completely unnecessary vaccines based on a quack medical hoax. (You can go ahead and use the #NaturalNonsense hashtag to turn the tables on these jokers. It’s all so laughable…)

The hit piece quotes a biotech-linked geneticist named Layla “Biochica” Katiraee who claims “Natural News has routinely peddled incorrect information and misled its readers in attempts to sell its nutritional supplements and organic goods that Adams claims protects consumers from a wide range of maladies, ranging from Zika to cancer.” Keep in mind that people like Katiraee are deeply ignorant of nutritional science, and they all believe pesticides and herbicides are completely safe to consume in nearly unlimited quantities. This is the brainwashing they’ve sadly endured, and because they eat so much poison themselves, they often suffer brain damage that impact their ability to think clearly (see below for details on the acetylcholinesterase inhibition caused by exposure to carbamate class pesticides).

In truth, Forbes.com has knowingly and deliberate lied to its readers for years about GMOs, vaccines and pesticides, employing actual sociopaths to pen its propaganda articles while being run by the communist Chinese. These propaganda efforts are not incidental, they are deliberate.

As far as actual science goes, Natural News was the first science journalism site in the world to warn Americans about the dangers of combining DEET-based insect repellants with non-organic food sprayed with carbamate pesticides. The two chemicals combine to form a powerful acetylcholinesterase inhibitor which interferes with cognitive function and can promote symptoms resembling Alzheimer’s and dementia.

My article on this warning was fully documented with the actual chemical structure graphics, numerous citations of scientific literature and references to my own laboratory analysis results. At a time when every mindless mainstream media outlet in the country was stupidly telling Americans to slather themselves with DEET chemicals, Natural News was the website warning people to exercise caution and reduce exposure to DEET. It later turned out, as even the Washington Post admitted, that the Zika virus links to microcephaly were a quack science hoax. (Forbes.com is still apparently unaware of this revelation, which is no surprise.)

The Health Ranger is the science director of a multi-million-dollar, internationally accredited forensic science laboratory

Speaking of real science, my private laboratory is a multi-million-dollar facility that’s independent audited, inspected and accredited by the International Standards Organization (ISO) under 17025 laboratory requirements. This is the gold standard of international laboratory accreditation, and after two years of preparation, we achieved this status in the Spring of 2016. (Forbes.com failed to mention this in their hit piece, for some reason. Guess they don’t want their readers to be informed of actual relevant facts…)

My laboratory is one of the very few independent science labs in America, meaning it takes no money from government grants, academia or powerful corporate interests. Thus, the science we conduct is automatically a more honest, trustworthy and independence science than any “compromised” lab which must answer to the politics of its funding sources. When we participated in a laboratory testing competition involving hundreds of laboratories, all running ICP-MS instrumentation, we scored so high on the test that we were awarded a Certificate of Excellence with a “100% acceptable data” designation. Since then, we’ve also participated in another forensic food analysis competition in which we scored so high that our ISO accreditation organization has now made us their No. 1 food science laboratory choice for accreditation verification. When it comes to real world laboratory science, you can’t get better than what we do at Natural News. We are among the very the best in the world at this applied science for forensic food analysis.

It is in my lab that I analyzed flu shots for mercury elements (scanning multiple isotopes at 200, 201 and 202 amu), discovering that flu shots given to children in the United States still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury, a toxic heavy metals with known neurological damage effects.

This is real science — the kind of science you’ll never see admitted by Forbes.com, academic institutions, science journals or government “authorities.”

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts,” physicist Richard Feynman famously said, and Natural News / Health Ranger / CWC Labs are among the very few science-based organizations on the planet that have the courage, funding and determination to call out the “ignorance of the experts” on a vast array of topics, from the total scam of chemotherapy to fraudulent HIV testing to the truth about vaccines causing autism and other neurological disorders in young children.

Forbes.com and the entire mainstream media has lost control of the narrative… and they are terrified

What the Forbes.com hit piece on Natural News really says is that the corrupt mainstream media has lost control of the narrative. Their “monopoly on truth” has been shattered, and because they can’t win any real debate on the facts, their goal is to silence the debate entirely. This is accomplished, they think, by slandering the voices they hope to eliminate. (Such is the “integrity” of their “science.” When they can’t win on the facts, they slander opposing views and proclaim their own opinions to be “divine facts.”)

Whether the subject is climate change, Zika virus, genetically engineered foods, glyphosate herbicide or conventional cancer treatments, Forbes.com is part of the rapidly failing cabal of disinformation propagandists who are losing readers, losing credibility and losing control by the day.

What really set off Forbes and other journo-terrorists in the quackstream media is when I became the lab science director of an ISO-accredited world-class science laboratory. They simply could not believe that a person they labeled “anti-science” could turn out to be a pioneering forensic food science who rapidly attained success as a scientist. When my recent book Food Forensics became the #1 bestselling science book on Amazon.com they completely flipped out.

Then, when I announced a breakthrough mass spec analysis method for the quantitation of cannabidiol molecules in hemp extracts, their jaws dropped to the floor in astonishment. Modern “science,” you see, has been monopolized by a corrupt cabal of corporate fraudsters who work for Big Pharma, Big Biotech and pesticide companies. In contrast, what I’m doing is demonstrating to everyone that any intelligent person can participate in legitimate science… it’s not a special “club” limited only to those who are chosen. Real science is democratic. It’s available to anyone who cares to learn the methods and technologies necessary to conduct science in the public interest. (I’ve also announced a “Science Warrior” effort to offer free ICP-MS lab testing for Native American communities across North America, to help them check for toxic heavy metals in their water systems. This really angers Forbes because they don’t want Native Americans to have an ally in the sciences who can finally expose the industry and government pollution of their waters.)

That’s why today, my laboratory has already published hundreds of water sample analysis results as part of our EPA Watch program, discovering that 6.7% of U.S. water samples violate established EPA limits for toxic heavy metals.

To publish these data (and more lab results coming in 2017), I even launched a new science journal called the Natural Science Journal. There, you can read my science paper entitled, “ICP-MS analysis of toxic elements (heavy metals) in 239 municipal water samples from across the United States.”

Forbes.com doesn’t know anything about real science. They don’t employ credible scientists, they don’t run a laboratory, they aren’t ISO accredited and they are actually nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for a combination of the communist Chinese and Monsanto Mafia puppets. Frankly, Forbes writers are too scientifically illiterate to argue any science at all. That’s why they are all industry propagandists, not actual scientists.

BACKFIRE: Natural News fans rip Forbes.com for their total stupidity and irrelevance

Here are just a few of the comments Natural News fans have posted so far in response to the Forbes.com hit piece. What this shows is that nobody is fooled by Forbes’ propaganda. In fact, their Forbes.com hit piece has only confirmed to Natural News readers that we are the real deal (and we aren’t controlled by corporate or globalist interests).

By attacking Natural News, Forbes.com has, in essence, “certified” our status as being truly independent and trustworthy. This works the same way as when the NYT attacks Donald Trump. Because no one trusts the mainstream media anymore, all those attacks only served to increase loyalty and trust in Trump.

Check out some of these comments to see for yourself. See the original link here.

 

“…Stupid Forbes. you think we’re going to fall for this. We are awakened and ready to discredit you every step of the way.”

“I LOVE Mike Adams and Natural News. If you want TRUTH, not fiction, read Natural News.”

“Mike Adams has saved hundreds of thousands of lives with his science and research on natural cures…”

“I say God Bless the Health Ranger and the Patriots…”

“I LOVE THE NATURAL NEWS WITH MIKE ADAMS!”

“There’s far more REAL TRUTH on Mike Adams NATURAL NEWS site than any so-called real science site…”

“Haha Forbes… YOU jerks are the FAKE NEWS! Natural News is awesome and Mike Adams is an exceptional person that helps people…”

“Forbes is a Rockefeller publication and is deeply embedded and derives substantial revenues from pharmaceutical companies…”

“My wife and I rely on Mike “The Health Ranger” Adams for good, sound, general and specific health advice.”

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-12-28-forbes-com-hit-piece-on-natural-news-backfires-health-ranger-powerful-foe-of-corporate-science-fraud-propaganda/feed/ 0
Top 7 causes of cancer and smart alternatives for prevention and healing /cancerscams/2016-12-25-top-7-causes-of-cancer-and-smart-alternatives-for-prevention-and-healing/ /cancerscams/2016-12-25-top-7-causes-of-cancer-and-smart-alternatives-for-prevention-and-healing/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-12-25-top-7-causes-of-cancer-and-smart-alternatives-for-prevention-and-healing If you had been walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells all day, and a doctor told you to take some aspirin for the pain, would you go out the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, and walk on those same rocks and shells, expecting the aspirin to “do the trick” every time, for weeks, months and even years? Wouldn’t you expect that you would get such a horrible infection that you might lose your foot, your leg or even your life? That’s exactly what people do with toxic junk food – they eat it at every meal, every day for years, and then take antacids, IBS medicine, aspirin, ibuprofen, diet pills and prescription medicines for everything from inflammation to depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia … you name it.

Then, after years of abuse, these same people think that some oncologist is just going to magically cut out the damage, the polyp or the tumor, and they’ll be just fine. It rarely ever works out. Why? Cancer is the uncontrolled multiplication of mutated cells that thrive off chemicals, and the more toxic food you eat, the worse it gets. It’s like walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells for years and expecting the doctors to just patch you up and send you home. Well, you can forget about it. You need drastic, major lifestyle changes to prevent and/or beat cancer. Sounds difficult, but if you know what to cut out first, it’s actually pretty easy. Here we go.

These top seven causes of cancer are some of the most popular foods, beverages and even medicines known to Americans. Doctors, dentists and dermatologists refrain from telling their patients the truth, or they may lose all their “clients for life.” Many doctors don’t even know what to tell their patients, because there is zero nutrition education in medical school in America. It’s true. Let’s take a look at the major cancer culprits “cutting up” your health daily.

Top seven causes of cancer, and great alternatives for prevention and healing

#1. Fluoridated water: Want some insecticide in your tap water? You’re in luck! It’s already in there. Municipal tap water often contains toxic sodium fluoride imported from China. It causes cancer, brittle bones and a lowered IQ. The solution? Get a Big Berkey water filtration system for your home. It’s the best filter on the planet, and even removes other people’s medications, heavy metal toxins, bleach, artificial sweeteners and more.

#2. Artificial sweeteners: They should be called the sweet devils, because aspartame, sorbitol and sucralose trick your body into thinking it’s getting something sweet, increasing cravings for sugar and carbs and contributing to weight gain. And, because they’re synthetic and carcinogenic, they warp your cells and lead to cancer of the breasts, prostate, bladder and more. Look into safe alternatives like stevia or xylitol, or just moderate your sugar intake using organic sugar in the raw, or better yet, organic honey.

#3. Nitrites and nitrates in meat: Meat spoils easily, so manufacturers use extra strong preservatives – highly concentrated salts – to preserve them. This goes for nearly all deli meat, barbecued meat, spicy meat, hot dogs, most Chinese food, jerky treats, sausages, and of course, meat in soups. Watch out for monosodium glutamate (MSG), a genetically modified preservative used to add flavoring back into meat products that have been processed with ammonia and bleach to kill the E.coli and salmonella. These salts cause migraines, severe dehydration, and yes, cancer. Want safe alternatives? Use organic sea salt, organic garlic salt and organic jalapeño peppers.

#4. Vaccines: Contained in the infamous polio vaccine were nearly 100 million doses of SV40 – a cancer-causing virus that is now believed to be responsible for causing millions of cancer cases in America, according to the CDC. The information was posted on an official CDC fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40) and Polio Vaccine. Though the CDC removed it from their site, RealFarmacy.com archived the damning page before the CDC pulled it. Check it out yourself here.

#5. Chemotherapy: Most MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their relatives, knowing as do that it only has a 3 percent chance of success and totally wipes out the human immune system, while flooding the whole body with chemicals that cause new cancers to develop. Look into medicinal mushrooms and alkalizing the body to naturally beat cancer.

#6. Pharmaceuticals (prescription medications): The number one cause of cancer is consuming chemicals, so why would you ever take prescription medications that are all made in laboratories using chemicals?

#7. Conventional gluten: Also known as “food glue,” most gluten is processed with bleach and toxic dough conditioners, and it all sticks in your digestive tract for days, rotting everything that comes in behind it and fueling chronic inflammation, IBS, dehydration, polyps, and eventually, cancer.

Sources for this article include:

TV.NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-12-25-top-7-causes-of-cancer-and-smart-alternatives-for-prevention-and-healing/feed/ 0
David Gorski’s extreme arrogance, pathological hatred and total disregard for opposing viewpoints makes him a danger to Karmanos cancer patients, warns author /cancerscams/2016-08-03-david-gorskis-extreme-arrogance-pathological-hatred-and-total-disregard-for-opposing-viewpoints-makes-him-a-danger-to-karmanos-cancer-patients-warns-author/ /cancerscams/2016-08-03-david-gorskis-extreme-arrogance-pathological-hatred-and-total-disregard-for-opposing-viewpoints-makes-him-a-danger-to-karmanos-cancer-patients-warns-author/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-03-david-gorskis-extreme-arrogance-pathological-hatred-and-total-disregard-for-opposing-viewpoints-makes-him-a-danger-to-karmanos-cancer-patients-warns-author As a public safety warning to all those seeking a breast cancer surgeon in the Detroit area, I’m offering the following warning in the public interest: Dr. David Gorski is a deranged, mentally ill cancer surgeon who is widely known as a pathological liar. His daily activities are conducted in direct violation of the American Medical Association’s established code of ethics, and he operates with a total disregard for any principles of truth, honesty, ethics or even sanity.”

That’s how Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, began a recent column in which he detailed some of the medical shenanigans that Big Pharma troll and shill Gorski has been involved in.

What’s especially dangerous about him, however, is that he continues to practice, and at a facility known to have harbored one of the more vile criminal cancer frauds in recent memory: the Karmanos Cancer Center in Detroit. Gorski’s Kamanos colleague Dr. Farid Fata regularly committed cancer fraud against unwitting patients and the federal government, fleecing taxpayers for tens of millions of dollars while putting scores through needless, painful and harmful cancer treatments.

Currently preparing to serve a 45-year prison sentence, Fata is, thankfully at least, out of the way and being punished for what he’s done. But, as reported by ClickonDetroit, there are more investigations underway regarding alleged malpractice by other cancer doctors at Kamanos and two other facilities.

Racketeering cartel

As the site reported further:

Eight others physicians have been named as part of the investigation as those who knew Fata was bilking the system.

“One of the counts he plead to was conspiracy, and one person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. There has to be co-conspirators,” said attorney Donna MacKenzie. “Who are those co-conspirators?”

MacKenzie has a growing list of cases she’s filed in Oakland County Circuit Court naming three hospitals: Crittenton, Karmanos and McLaren. The lawsuits are for medical malpractice resulting in death or other significant injuries.

“What we would like to get to the bottom of is who else knew what was going on, what did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?” MacKenzie said.

All of the doctors named in the lawsuits are still practicing medicine.

Is Gorski one of the doctors under investigation? We don’t know yet, but one thing is clear: He is involved in his own sort of racketeering cartel to defraud the public. He’s engaged in conspiracy racketeering with other key individuals to exploit editorial privileges so he can spread false information about holistic cancer treatments and preventive measures in order to financially benefit himself as a highly paid conventional cancer surgeon.

He’s quite pathological as well, with Adams noting here that his demeanor is “irreconcilable with the professional demeanor of a clear-headed physician working in the interests of patients.”

“In my view, David Gorski’s pathological hatred for holistic health advocates makes him a danger to his patients,” Adams said in separate comments. “When he should be spending time educating cancer patients about ways to prevent cancer, he is instead trolling the internet with messages of hate, rallying nature-hating trolls to bully the very holistic doctors and activists who threaten the profits Dr. Gorski collects from a steady stream of insurance-carrying patients who are stricken with cancer.”

Killed innocent patients

In his incredibly biased Wikipedia entry for the recently released blockbuster documentary VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, which we are told he made under the pseudonym “MastCell,” Gorski gave short shrift to the meat of the film – the data, the scientific proof, the confirming research and the admission by Dr. William Thompson of the CDC that he and others with the agency suppressed a link between vaccines and autism. In fact, the entry goes out of its way to denigrate the film, using wording like “discredited” and “so-called ‘CDC whistleblower.'” Also, Gorski even quotes himself in the entry, while giving much weight to “experts” who are obviously skeptical and dismissive of the film’s contentions.

“When a physician becomes so preoccupied with the activities of spreading online hate and waging personal smear campaigns against whoever he names as enemies, he simply cannot function effectively as a responsible physician,” Adams, author of Food Forensics and featured speaker at The Truth About Cancer, noted further.

In his letter to the Michigan Board of Medicine and the FBI, among others, Adams said he has “rational, evidence-based reason” to suspect that Dr. Fata was just one of several alleged fraudsters “who continue to place the public” in danger via medial malpractice and negligence.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. David Gorski has killed innocent patients through his own medical negligence, and I believe that a careful review of Dr. Gorski’s patient records at the Karmanos Cancer Center and other clinics would reveal inexcusable oversights that led to patient complications or death,” Adams said separately.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

ClickOnDetroit.com

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-03-david-gorskis-extreme-arrogance-pathological-hatred-and-total-disregard-for-opposing-viewpoints-makes-him-a-danger-to-karmanos-cancer-patients-warns-author/feed/ 0
Exposing the fraud and mythology of conventional cancer treatments /cancerscams/2016-08-03-exposing-the-fraud-and-mythology-of-conventional-cancer-treatments/ /cancerscams/2016-08-03-exposing-the-fraud-and-mythology-of-conventional-cancer-treatments/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-03-exposing-the-fraud-and-mythology-of-conventional-cancer-treatments Treating cancer is BIG business in America — in fact, it’s a $200 billion a year business. Yet 98 percent of conventional cancer treatments not only FAIL miserably, but are also almost guaranteed to make cancer patients sicker.What’s worse: The powers are suppressing natural cancer cures that could help tens of thousands of people get well and live cancer free with little or no dependence on drugs, surgery and chemotherapy.The treatment of cancer in the U.S. is one of the most bald-faced cover-ups in medical history. Enough is enough! You deserve to know the truth about the criminality of oncologists and about the dangers of chemotherapy, conventional cancer treatments and the cancer “business.”

Chemotherapy kills more than cancer

Want proof? Did you know that 9 out of 10 oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer? That’s up to 91% — a huge percentage that clearly shines a light on the truth: chemotherapy kills. Conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they’re also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery right after their diagnoses.

Why would that large percentage of oncologists – the ones telling so many patients to get chemotherapy – refuse to do it themselves? Because they know it’s not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy.

Not shocked enough yet? A rigorous review of chemotherapy revealed that it fails for 98% of people. And when chemotherapy was tested against no treatment, no treatment proved the better option. What’s more is only two to four percent of cancers respond well to chemotherapy.

In a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer, those who received no treatment lived 11 months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments.

A 14-year study by two oncologists in Australia reported in the film “A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies” that conventional treatment such as chemotherapy for all of our major cancers is totally ineffective — far below a 10% success rate.

Chemotherapy is a barbaric and pointless procedure. It attacks and kills not just cancer, but also all the living, healthy cells in the body and completely cripples the body’s immune system. While this extreme treatment has been called effective against testicular cancers and lymphocytic leukemia, in many cases it’s hard to tell which the supposed “therapy” will kill first — the cancer or the patient. In fact, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say most people, who die from cancer, actually die from cancer TREATMENTS.

Mammograms do more damage than good (and preventive mastectomies are pointless)

The $4 billion-a-year mammogram industry urges women to rely on these x-ray tests to “protect” their health. However, what they don’t tell you is mammograms are a highly unnecessary and harmful treatment. In fact, mammograms harm ten women for every one the procedure helps.

A study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Demark reviewed both the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women.

For every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but ten would be harmed. This is because mammograms can actually INCREASE a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by as much as 3% a year by irradiating the breast cells and triggering breast cancer.

Modern cancer treatments = the “Dark Ages” of medicine

In the documentary, Cancer is Curable, available on NaturalNews (http://premium.naturalnews.tv/CANCER_is_cura…), one alternative cancer treatment expert says someday people will look back and wonder “what kind of Neanderthals we were” for practicing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (or cut, burn and poison). He also calls the conventional approach to cancer treatment “medieval.”

Statistics show that there is no proof preventive mastectomy — removal of the whole breast — extends the life of breast cancer patients, yet oncologists go right on doing it on a regular basis. Preventative mastectomies are pointless procedures, and many patients are led to believe they have cancer due to false positive cancer screenings. This means they are pressured into having breasts removed for no reason whatsoever. The women undergoing these treatments are scarred for life.

CT scans, or computed tomographies, are a common testing procedure for most cancer types, but the irony is that this CT scan radiation is highly dangerous and can lead to cancer itself.

The radiation from a CT scan actually has been shown to cause a substantial amount of cancer. A recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the radiation from current CT-scan use (estimated at more than 62 million CT scans per year in the US) may cause as many as 1 in 50 future cases of cancer. This is nothing to be taken lightly. Radiation from medical devices is a huge and under-estimated contribution to the growing incidence of breast and other forms of cancer.

According to an article in Time Health, other studies prove doctors are performing too many unwarranted CT scans, exposing a countless amount of patients to cancer-causing radiation. Many mammograms are also miscalibrated, so they end up churning out far too much radiation to be safe. If a woman begins getting routine mammograms at age 40, then by age 60 it is almost certain she will have breast cancer.

It’s no wonder so many women end up with this form of cancer – they begin getting frequent screenings starting in middle age at the urgings of doctors everywhere. The health and cancer industries know about the connection between CT scan radiation and mammograms and cancer statistics, yet they keep pushing patients to perform these “preventive” procedures. The outrageous truth is frequent mammograms purposely bring repeat business to the corrupt cancer industry by creating cancer tumors over time.

Speaking of lies, virtually NONE of Komen’s donation money goes toward funding actual cancer research. Up to 95% of the donation money at Komen goes to provide “free mammograms” to African American women and low income women – after all, they wouldn’t want them to be left out from all this unnecessary radiation. Better ensure they get cancer, as well. Komen’s money is almost entirely contributed toward doing more mammograms and pumping more radiation into women.

There is actually a little-known test for breast cancer that exists, and this method yields no false positive or negatives: a saliva test. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston discovered that women with breast cancer carry different proteins than women with no cancer; this can be tested by a saliva test so simple a dentist could do it.

Big Pharma lies to convince us that their so-called cancer “cures” work

Oncologists and Big Pharma use clever tricks to promote their cancer treatments such as using relative numbers to supposedly prove the effectiveness of their cancer treatments. For example, if you or a loved one has breast cancer, doctors will likely recommend the drug Tamoxifen. They’ll tell you it reduces the chances of breast cancer recurring by 49%, which sounds fairly impressive.

However, based on absolute numbers, Tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer returning by 1.6% — 30 times less than advertised. Relative numbers instead of cold, hard statistics are often used by oncologists because relative numbers can be manipulated in many ways. Any relative statistic that allows the percentages to be spun in a false positive light could be used in these situations.

Perhaps you have heard through the major media that treating early stage breast cancer creates a 91% cure rate over five years. This statement is absolutely ridiculous — you could get the same cure rate by doing nothing at all (breast cancer is a very slow growing cancer).

The point is: Don’t be fooled by ambiguous “relative” numbers. Get the real facts!

Drug companies pay oncologists to promote (expensive) ineffective and toxic cancer drugs

Most oncologists don’t make their money by treating patients, but by selling cancer drugs. In fact, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, as much as 75% of the average oncologist’s earnings come from selling chemotherapy drugs in his or her office — and at a substantially marked-up price.

Pharmaceutical companies not only hire charismatic people to charm doctors, exaggerate drug benefits and underplay side effects, but they also pay oncologists kickbacks to push their drugs. For example, AstraZeneca, Inc. had to pay $280 million in civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the federal government after it paid kickbacks to doctors for promoting its prostate cancer drug.

Many oncologists are criminals and bullies, not doctors

Oncologists not only bully patients into taking the destructive route of chemotherapy, toxic drugs and surgery, but they also don’t tell their patients the whole truth about the danger of these treatments, other available options, cancer survival statistics, and much more. An innumerable number of cancer patients have suffered needless at the hands of these so-called doctors, who are often really corrupt and immoral human beings that could care less about the healing process of their patients. Many of these shameless oncologists deserve to be arrested and prosecuted immediately for the crimes they commit, yet they keep on sending patients down the same treacherous and painful road that has resulted in too many deaths to keep track of.

More and more patients are waking up to the truth about cancer treatment and educating themselves on the power of whole food nutrition and supplements — they are choosing doctors that educate and heal them rather than bully them into surgery and chemotherapy. The staggering documentary Cancer is Curable mentioned earlier interviews doctors who tell you how patients are often pressured by conventional oncologists; sometimes they’re even hustled onto the operating table the day after their diagnosis — without having any of their other choices explained to them.

What’s worse is that no matter how effective a treatment could be, conventional patients are still being killed by the food they are fed in hospitals. All the doctors in Cancer is Curable unanimously explain that sugar is the No. 1 killer for every cancer patient — and although every medical doctor should know that fact, they still continue to give their patients tootsie rolls and candies in the chemotherapy room.

Many oncologists are also telling their cancer patients to stop taking antioxidant supplements while they’re undergoing treatment. Why? Because they’re saying there is a possibility that antioxidants could be lowering the effectiveness of cancer treatments like radiation treatment and chemotherapy.

In spite of what you might have been told or led to believe, chemo is hardly the exact science that it pretends to be. And yet, on the mere hunch that antioxidants could be protecting the cancer cells that chemotherapy seeks to destroy, oncologists feel justified in telling their patients to forfeit antioxidant supplements.

There are a ridiculous number of false positives in cancer screenings

Among 1,087 individuals participating in a cancer screening trial who received a battery of tests for prostate, ovarian, colorectal and lung cancer, 43 % had at least one false positive test result, according to a study published in an issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/Ne…). That’s almost half of the patients who were tested!

One of the obvious downfalls of this is the needlessly expensive medical care costs associated with false positive cancer screenings. Considering the high cost of testing and treatments, the economic consequences of false-positive screening results are significant. Let’s not neglect to mention the pointless emotional and physical suffering inflicted upon thousands of patients who are led to believe they have cancer.

In the study mentioned above, men that specifically were given a false positive result for either prostate, lung or colorectal cancer averaged almost $2,000 in additional medical care expenditures compared to men with all negative screens. More than half — or 51% — of the men in the study had at least one false positive test.

The lesson to take home from all this

These cancer cover-ups and myths are just a few basic examples of how corrupt and dishonest the cancer industry really is. This especially pertains to the oncologists, who are treating patients regardless of knowing the disturbing truth about the procedures, testing and treatment processes they so frequently push upon their patients.

While not all oncologists should be placed into the same category, a large majority of these criminal “doctors” should be held accountable and properly punished for the needless struggle they are inflicting upon thousands of cancer sufferers. If you know anyone who is being pushed into chemotherapy and other deadly and unnecessary “treatments,” share the truth with them today and you could save a life.

Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to these cancer lies and are looking into safer and more effective alternative treatment protocols and therapies.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/Ne…
http://holisticmedicine.multiply.com/journal…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12…
http://false-positives.blogspot.com/
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/articl…
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/12/2…
http://sirpabs.ilahas.com/cancer_facts.htm

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-03-exposing-the-fraud-and-mythology-of-conventional-cancer-treatments/feed/ 0
Questionable Cancer Therapies /cancerscams/2016-08-02-questionable-cancer-therapies/ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-questionable-cancer-therapies/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-02-questionable-cancer-therapies The American Cancer Society (ACS) has defined questionable methods as lifestyle practices, clinical tests, or therapeutic modalities that are promoted for general use for the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of cancer and which are, on the basis of careful review by scientists and/or clinicians, deemed to have no real evidence of value [1]. Under the rules of science (and federal law), proponents who make health claims bear the burden of proof. It is their responsibility to conduct suitable studies and report them in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and confirmation by others. The ACS evaluates cancer methods by asking three questions:

(Article by Stephen Barrett)

  • Has the method been objectively demonstrated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to be effective?
  • Has the method shown potential for benefit that clearly exceeds the potential for harm?
  • Have objective studies been correctly conducted under appropriate peer review to answer these questions?

FDA Historian Wallace F. Janssen has noted that in every decade since 1940, a questionable cancer remedy has attracted a large following and become a national issue [2]. It was Koch Antitoxins in the 1940s, Hoxsey treatment in the 1950s, Krebiozen in the 1960s [3], laetrile in the 1970s, and immuno-augmentative therapy in the 1980s. Today’s questionable methods include corrosive agents, plant products, special diets and “dietary supplements,” drugs, correction of “imbalances,” biologic methods, devices, miscellaneous concoctions, psychological approaches, and worthless diagnostic tests. Many promoters combine methods to make themselves more marketable. A 1987 ACS investigation found that 452 (9%) of 5,047 cancer patients identified through a telephone survey had used questionable treatments. Of these, 49% had used “mind therapies” (mental imagery, hypnosis, or psychic therapy) and 38% had used diets [4]. The dangers of using questionable treatments include delay in getting appropriate treatment, decreased quality of life, direct physical harm, interference with proven treatment, waste of valuable time, financial harm, and psychological damage [5].

Quackwatch has heard from many people who have been defrauded of large sums of money pursuing nonexistent cancer “cures.” Most of these cases involved offshore clinics to whom money was wired in advance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has jurisdiction over cases involving wire fraud. Americans who believe they have been victims of wire fraud should report what happened to the FBI.

Typical Misrepresentations

Proponents of questionable methods typically claim that marketplace demand and testimonials from satisfied customers are proof that their remedies work. However, proponents almost never keep score or reveal what percentage of their cases end in failure. Cancer cures attributed to questionable methods usually fall into one or more of five categories:

  1. The patient never had cancer.
  2. A cancer was cured or put into remission by proven therapy, but questionable therapy was also used and erroneously credited for the beneficial result
  3. The cancer is progressing but is erroneously represented as slowed or cured.
  4. The patient has died as a result of the cancer (or is lost to follow-up) but is represented as cured.
  5. The patient had a spontaneous remission (very rare) or slow-growing cancer that is publicized as a cure.

Promoters of questionable methods often misrepresent their methods as “alternatives.” Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met the criteria for safety and effectiveness. Experimentalalternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation. Questionable “alternatives” are unproven and lack a scientifically plausible rationale. When referring to the latter, we use quotation marks because they are not true alternatives. Some promoters of “alternative” methods are physicians or other highly educated scientists who have strayed from scientific thought. The factors that motivate them can include delusional thinking, misinterpretation of personal experience, financial considerations, and pleasure derived from notoriety and/or patient adulation.

Misinformation about questionable cancer therapies is spread through books, articles, audiotapes, videotapes, talk shows, news reports, lectures, health expositions, “alternative” practitioners, information and referral services, and word of mouth. Promoters typically explain their approach in commonsense terms and appear to offer patients an active role in their care: (a) cancer is a symptom, not a disease; (b) symptoms are caused by diet, stress, or environment; (c) proper fitness, nutrition, and mental attitude allow biologic and mental defense against cancer; and (d) conventional therapy weakens the body’s reserves, treats the symptoms rather than the disease [6]. Questionable therapies are portrayed as natural and nontoxic, while standard (responsible) therapies are portrayed as highly dangerous. The figure below comes from a misleading comic book designed to undermine public trust in conventional methods.

cancerscare

During the past few years, the news media have publicized “alternative” methods in ways that are causing great public confusion. Most of these reports have contained no critical evaluation and have featured the views of proponents and their satisfied clients. Many have exaggerated the significance of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM)—now called the Center for Research in Alternative and Complementary Medicine—whose creation was spearheaded by promoters of questionable cancer therapies who wanted more attention paid to their methods. Most of the its advisory panel members have been promoters of “alternative” therapies. In 1994, the OAM’s first director resigned, charging that political interference had hampered his ability to carry out OAM’s mission in a scientific manner [7]. The OAM has funded several dozen studies related to “alternative” methods, including a few related to cancer treatment. However, it remains to be seen whether such research will yield useful results. Even if it does, the benefit is unlikely to outweigh the publicity bonanza given to questionable methods. Some of today’s “alternative” methods are described below in alphabetical order. Longer reports on many of the methods can be accessed by following the hyperlinks.

Antineoplastons

Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., has given the name “antineoplastons” to substances he claims can “normalize” cancer cells that are constantly being produced within the body. He has published many papers stating that antineoplastons extracted from urine or synthesized in his laboratory have proven effective against cancer in laboratory experiments. He also claims to have helped many people with cancer get well. A 1992 analysis concluded that none of Burzynski’s “antineoplastons” has been proven to normalize tumor cells [8].

In 1988, Burzynski got a tremendous boost when talk-show hostess Sally Jesse Raphael featured four “miracles,” patients of Burzynski, who she said were cancer-free. The patients stated that Burzynski had cured them when conventional methods had failed. In 1992, “Inside Edition” reported that two of the four patients had died and a third was having a recurrence of her cancer. (The fourth patient had bladder cancer, which has a good prognosis.) The widow of one of Raphael’s guests stated that her husband and five others from the same city had sought treatment after learning about Burzynski from a television broadcast—and that all had died of their disease. In 1995, a federal grand jury indicted Burzynski for mail fraud and marketing an unapproved drug. The indictment charged that he had billed insurance companies using procedure codes for chemotherapy, even though his treatment was not chemotherapy. He was tried in 1997 but not convicted.

In 1998, the Texas Attorney General secured a consent agreement stating that Burzynski: (a) cannot distribute unapproved drugs in Texas; (b) can distribute “antineoplastons” only to patients enrolled in FDA approved clinical trials, unless the FDA approves his drugs for sale; (c) cannot advertise “antineoplastons” for the treatment of cancer; and (d) on his website and in promotional material and ads must place a disclaimer that the safety and effectiveness of “antineoplastons” have not been established. The agreement also called for Burzynski to pay $50,000 to reimburse the Attorney General’s office and the Texas Health Department for the cost of their investigation [9]. The Cancer Letter subsequently noted that although Burzynski has set up many “clinical trials,” they do not conform to usual standards [10].

CanCell

CanCell—originally called Entelev and recently renamed Cantron and Protocel—is a liquid claimed to cure cancer by “lowering the voltage of the cell structure by about 20%,” causing cancer cells to “digest” and be replaced with normal cells. Accompanying directions have warned that bottles of CanCell should not be allowed to touch each other or be placed near any electrical appliance or outlet. CanCell has also been promoted for the treatment of AIDS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, “extreme cases of emphysema and diabetes,” and several other diseases. In 1989, the FDA reported that CanCell contained inositol, nitric acid, sodium sulfite, potassium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, and catechol. Subsequently, its promoters claimed to be modifying the formulation to make it more effective [11]. They have also claimed that CanCell can’t be analyzed because it varies with atmospheric vibrations and keeps changing its energy [12]. Laboratory tests conducted between 1978 and 1991 by the NCI found no evidence that CanCell was effective against cancer. The FDA has obtained an injunction forbidding its distribution to patients.

Cell Specific Cancer Therapy (also called Zoetron Therapy)

According to information on the promoter’s web site during 1997, Cell Specific Cancer Therapy (CSCT) was applied with a device that was four inches thick, shaped like a donut, and exposed the patient to a magnetic field that was much weaker than that of magnetic resonance imaging. It was offered a clinic in the Dominican Republic that later was moved to Mexisco. The advertised fee was $20,000, payable in advance, but the fee was sometimes reduced or waived for people unable to pay. CSCT was claimed not to cure cancer but to “destroy active cancerous cells in a body and to do so without causing any damage to healthy cells.” Its stated objective was to destroy enough cancerous cells that the body’s immune system is “once again able to take over and do its normal job.” The device was claimed to “detect cancerous cells with a sensitivity much greater than that of either conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or CAT scans” and to destroy cancer cells without harming adjacent normal cells.” The promoter claimed that cancerous cells have an “atypical metabolic mechanism that made them “susceptible to polarizing electromagnetic fields.” There is no scientific evidence that magnetic energy can selectively destroy cancer cells. Coordinated action by agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico resulted in closure of the clinic in 2003. Similar treatment was offered at the Davidson Cancer Clinic in Mexico, whose proprietor was imprisoned for fraud.

Clark’s “Cure for All Cancers”

Hulda Clark, Ph.D., N.D., an unlicensed naturopath claimd that (a) all cancers and many other diseases are caused by “parasites, toxins, and pollutants”; (b) cancers can be detected with a blood test for ortho-phospho-tyrosine and a device that identifies diseased organs and toxic substances; (c) cancers can be cured by killing the parasites and ridding the body of environmental chemicals; (d) black walnut hulls, wormwood, and common cloves can rid the body of over 100 types of parasites; and (e) the amino acids ornithine and arginine improve this recipe. Her book Cure for All Cancers, contains 103 case histories of her supposed cancer cures. However, judging from her descriptions (a) most did not have cancer, and (b) of those that did, most had received standard medical treatment or their tumors were in early stages. In 2009, Clark died of complications of multiple myeloma, a form of lymphoma in which plasma cells become overabundant in the bone marrow. Information posted by supporters suggests that life was shortened because she treated herself rather than seeking timely and appropriate medical care.

Devices

Many types of devices are used with unfounded claims that they are effective against cancer. These include devices that pass low-voltage electrical current through tumors or the body, “electroacupuncture” devices purported to measure the electrical resistance of “acupuncture points,” electrical devices claimed to “charge” blood samples taken from patients and later reinjected, negative ion generators claimed to have an effect against tumors, radionics devices claimed to diagnose and cure cancer by analyzing and emitting radio waves at the correct frequencies, magnets claimed capable of curing cancers by “improving circulation” or by intracellular effects, and projectors of colored light claimed to exert healing effects [13].

Essiac

Essiac is an herbal remedy that was prescribed and promoted for about 50 years by Rene M. Caisse, a Canadian nurse who died in 1978. Shortly before her death, she turned over the formula and manufacturing rights to the Resperin Corporation, a Canadian company that has provided it to patients under a special agreement with Canadian health officials. Several reports state that the formula contains burdock, Indian rhubarb, sorrel, and slippery elm, but there may be additional ingredients. Essiac tea claimed to be Caisse’s original formulation is also marketed in the United States. Several animal tests using samples of Essiac have shown no antitumor activity. Nor did a review of data on 86 patients performed by the Canadian federal health department during the early 1980s [14].

Fresh Cell Therapy

Fresh cell therapy, also called live cell therapy or cellular therapy, involves injections of fresh embryonic animal cells taken from the organ or tissue that corresponds to the unhealthy organ or tissue in the patient. Proponents claim that the recipient’s body automatically transports the injected cells to the target organ where they repair and rejuvenate the ailing cells. The American Cancer Society states that fresh cell therapy has no proven benefit and has caused serious side effects (infections and immunologic reactions to the injected protein) and death [15]. In 1984, The FDA issued an Import Alert asking the U.S. Customs and Postal Services to block the importation of all “cell therapy” powders and extracts intended for injection.

Gerson Method

Proponents of the Gerson diet claim that cancer can be cured only if toxins are eliminated from the body. They recommend “detoxification” with frequent coffee enemas and a low-sodium diet that includes more than a gallon a day of juices made from fruits, vegetables, and raw calf’s liver. This method was developed by Max Gerson, a German-born physician who emigrated to the United States in 1936 and practiced in New York City until his death in 1959. Gerson therapy is still available at Hospital Meridien in Tijuana, Mexico and, since February 1997, at the Gerson Healing Center in Sedona, Arizona.

Gerson therapy is still actively promoted by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, through lectures, talk show appearances, and publications of the Gerson Institute in Bonita, California. Gerson protocols have included liver extract injections, ozone enemas, “live cell therapy,” thyroid tablets, royal jelly capsules, linseed oil, castor oil enemas, clay packs, laetrile, and vaccines made from influenza virus and killed Staphylococcus aureus bacteria.

In 1947, the NCI reviewed ten cases selected by Dr. Gerson and found his report unconvincing. That same year, a committee appointed by the New York County Medical Society reviewed records of 86 patients, examined ten patients, and found no evidence that the Gerson method had value in treating cancer. An NCI analysis of Dr. Gerson’s book A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases concluded in 1959 that most of the cases failed to meet the criteria (such as histologic verification of cancer) for proper evaluation of a cancer case [16]. A recent review of the Gerson treatment rationale concluded: (a) the “poisons” Gerson claimed to be present in processed foods have never been identified, (b) frequent coffee enemas have never been shown to mobilize and remove poisons from the liver and intestines of cancer patients, (c) there is no evidence that any such poisons are related to the onset of cancer, (d) there is no evidence that a “healing” inflammatory reaction exists that can seek out and kill cancer cells [17].

Between 1980 and 1986 at least 13 patients treated with Gerson therapy were admitted to San Diego area hospitals with Campylobacter fetus sepsis attributable to the liver injections [18]. None of the patients was cancer-free, and one died of his malignancy within a week. Five were comatose due to low serum sodium levels, presumably as a result of the “no sodium” Gerson dietary regimen. As a result, Gerson personnel modified their techniques for handling raw liver products and biologicals. However, the Gerson approach still has considerable potential for harm. Deaths also have been attributed to the coffee enemas administered at the Tijuana clinic.

Charlotte Gerson claims that treatment at the clinic has produced high cure rates for many cancers. In 1986, however, investigators learned that patients were not monitored after they left the facility [19]. Although clinic personnel later said they would follow their patients systematically, there is no published evidence that they have done so. Three naturpaths who visited the Gerson Clinic in 1983 were able to track 18 patients over a 5-year period (or until death) through annual letters or phone calls. At the 5-year mark, only one was still alive (but not cancer-free); the rest had succumbed to their cancer [20].

Greek Cancer Cure

The principal proponent of the Greek Cancer Cure was microbiologist Dr. Hariton-Tzannis Alivizatos, of Athens, Greece, who died in 1991. He claimed to have a blood test that could determine the type, location, and severity of any cancer. He also asserted that his “serum” enabled the patient’s immune system to destroy cancer cells, and helped the body rejuvenate parts destroyed by cancer. Knowledgeable observers believe that the principal ingredient of the so-called Greek Cancer Cure was niacin. The American Cancer Society and the NCI asked Alivizatos several times for detailed information on his methods, but he never replied [21].

Hoxsey Treatment

Naturopath Harry Hoxsey promoted an herbal treatment consisting of an externally used paste or powder and a tonic taken orally. The external preparations contained corrosive agents such as arsenic sulfide. The internal medicine, said to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, contained potassium iodide and such things as red clover, licorice, burdock root, Stillingia root, Berberis root, pokeroot, cascara, prickly ash bark, and buckthorn bark. Hoxsey said that the formulas were developed in 1840 by his great grandfather and passed to him by his father while the latter was dying of cancer.

Hoxsey’s treatment was offered at clinics in the United States from 1924 until repeated clashes with the FDA led him to close his main clinic in Dallas in the late 1950s. In 1963, Hoxsey’s former chief nurse Mildred Nelson began offering it at a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico [22]. Hoxsey himself contracted prostate cancer in 1967 and underwent surgery after treating himself unsuccessfully with his tonic. Most of the herbs in the tonic have been tested for antitumor activity in cancer, with negligible results for a few and no results for the others. Some of these herbs, most notably pokeroot, have toxic side effects. The NCI evaluated case reports submitted by Hoxsey and concluded that no assessment was possible because the records did not contain adequate information [23]. Hoxsey died in 1974. Nelson died in January 1999.

Hydrazine Sulfate

In the mid-1970s, hydrazine sulfate was proposed for treating the progressive weight loss and debilitation characteristic of advanced cancer. Based on animal data and preliminary human studies, it has also been claimed to cause tumor regression and subjective improvement in patients. However, three recent trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute demonstrated no benefit attributable to hydrazine sulfate [24-26]. The trials involved 243 patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer, 266 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and 127 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The largest of the three found that nerve damage occurred more often and that quality of life was significantly worse in the hydrazine sulfate group. After these studies were published, proponents claimed that they were flawed because patients were permitted to ingest tranquilizers, barbiturates, or alcohol, which allegedly would nullify the effect of hydrazine sulfate. The National Cancer Institute rejected these concerns, and an investigation by United States General Accounting Office found no difference in survival times between the patients who had taken these drugs and those who had not [27]. In December 2000, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a case report of a 55-year-old man with cancer of the sinus near his left cheekbone. Instead of undergoing recommended medical treatment, he obtained hydrazine sulfate through a Web site and, for four months, followed the regimen published on the kathykeeton.com Web site. Two weeks later, he was hospitalized with signs of kidney and liver failure. Despite intensive hospital care, he died within a week [28,29].

“Hyperoxygenation” Therapies

“Hyperoxygenation” therapy—also called “bio-oxidative therapy” and “oxidative therapy”—is based on the erroneous concept that cancer is caused by oxygen deficiency and can be cured by exposing cancer cells to more oxygen than they can tolerate. The most touted agents are hydrogen peroxide, germanium sesquioxide, and ozone. Although these compounds have been the subject of legitimate research, there is little or no evidence that they are effective for the treatment of any serious disease, and each has demonstrated potential for harm [30]. Germanium products have caused irreversible kidney damage and death [31]. The FDA has banned their importation and seized products from several U.S. manufacturers.

Immuno-augmentative Therapy

Immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT) was developed by Lawrence Burton, Ph.D., a zoologist who claimed he could stimulate the immune system’s natural ability to detect and destroy cancer cells. He claimed to accomplish this by injecting protein extracts isolated with processes he had patented. However: (a) the immune system does not detect and destroy cancer cells as Burton postulated, and (b) the substances he claimed to use cannot be produced by the procedures described in his patent applications and have not been demonstrated to exist in the human body [32].

NCI scientists who analyzed IAT treatment materials given to several patients concluded that the materials were dilute solutions of ordinary blood proteins, primarily albumin. None were electrophoretically pure, and none contained Burton’s postulated components. Burton did not publish detailed clinical reports, divulge to the scientific community the details of his methods, publish meaningful statistics, conduct a controlled trial, or provide independent investigators with specimens of his treatment materials for analysis. During the mid-1980s, several of his patients developed serious infections following IAT [33].

In 1980, CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” gave Burton a tremendous publicity boost when a prominent physician stated that one of his patients appeared to have recovered miraculously with Burton’s treatment. Although the patient died of his cancer twelve days after the program was shown, “60 Minutes” refused to inform viewers of this fact. In 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment assembled a group of technical experts and representatives of Burton to design a clinical trial to evaluate IAT. However, communication between Burton and U.S. government authorities broke down after he insisted that a “pre-test” be conducted at his clinic [34]. Burton died in 1993, but the clinic is still operating.

Iscador

Iscador is an extract of mistletoe first proposed for the treatment of cancer in 1920 by Rudolph Steiner (1861-1925), who espoused many occult beliefs. Steiner founded the Society for Cancer Research to promote mistletoe extracts and occult-based practices he called anthroposophical medicine. A 1962 report by the society claimed that the time of picking the plants was important because they react to the influences of the sun, moon, and planets. Various mistletoe juice preparations have been studied with the hope of finding an effective anticancer agent. However, in 1984, the expert working group of the Swiss Society for Oncology concluded that there was no evidence that Iscador was effective against human cancers [35]. To date, more than 30 clinical studies have investigated imistletoe as a cancer treatment. The National Cancer Institute has concluded: “Reports of improved survival and/or quality of life have been common, but nearly all of the studies had major weaknesses that raise doubts about the reliability of the findings.” [36]

Kelley/Gonzalez Metabolic Therapy

In the 1960s, William Donald Kelley, D.D.S. (1925-2005), developed a program for cancer patients that involved dietary measures, vitamin and enzyme supplements, and computerized “metabolic typing.” Kelley classified people as “sympathetic dominant,” “parasympathetic dominant,” or metabolically “balanced” and made dietary recommendations for each type. He claimed that his “Protein Metabolism Evaluation Index” could diagnose cancer before it was clinically apparent and that his “Kelley Malignancy Index could detect “the presence or absence of cancer, the growth rate of the tumor, the location of the tumor mass, prognosis of the treatment, age of the tumor and the regulation of medication for treatment.”

In 1970, Kelley was enjoined from practicing medicine without a license after witnesses testified that he had diagnosed lung cancer on the basis of blood from a patient’s finger and prescribed dietary supplements, enzymes, and a diet as treatment. In 1976, following unsuccessful court appeals, his dental license was suspended for five years [37]. However, he continued to promote his methods until the mid-1980s through his Dallas-based International Health Institute. Under the institute’s umbrella, licensed professionals and “certified metabolic technicians” throughout the United States would administer a 3,200-item questionnaire and send the answers to Dallas. The resultant computer printout provided a lengthy report on “metabolic status” plus detailed instructions covering foods, supplements (typically 100 to 200 pills per day), “detoxification” techniques, and lifestyle changes.

In 1987, Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., of New York City, began offering treatment that he said was similar to that of Kelley. Gonzalez also analyzed many of Kelley’s records and in drafted a book that included a chapter about 50 cases. In 1990, experts who reviewed the chapter manuscript found no evidence of benefit. Gonzalez said that he offered “10 basic diets with 90 variations” and typically prescribes coffee enemas and “up to 150 pills a day in 10 to 12 divided doses.”

In 1994, after investigating six of Gonzalez’s cases, New York State licensing authorities had concluded: (a) his “alternative protocol” did not entitle him to an alternative standard of care; (b) he had failed to correctly interpret signs and symptoms of disease progression, (c) he had treated the patients incompetently, and (d) his record-keeping was inadequate. He placed on probation for three years with a stipulation that he undergo retraining and his work be supervised by the Office of Professional Conduct. [Download documentation]

In 1997, a jury in New York City awarded $2.5 million in actual damages and $150,000 in punitive damages to a former Gonzalez patient. The woman testified that she had been diagnosed with an early stage of uterine cancer in 1991 and underwent a hysterectomy. Instead of following through with medically recommended radiation and chemotherapy, she consulted Gonzalez who discouraged her from following her cancer specialist’s advice. Based on his interpretation of a hair test, Gonzalez prescribed up to 150 dietary supplement pills a day plus frequent coffee enemas. Later he claimed that the cancer was cured even though it was progressing. It eventually damaged her spine and left her blind. An appeals court upheld the $2.5 million verdict but dismissed the punitive damage award. In April 2000, a jury awarded $282,000 in damages to the husband of a 40-year-old college professor who had died of Hodgkin’s disease in 1995. According to an article in The New York Daily News, the jury found him negligent because he failed to arrange “appropriate testing” to track the cancer, relying instead on an unproven method of hair analysis [38]. In July 2015, Gonzalez’s office announced that he had suddenly collapsed and died, apparently of a heart-related cause.

In 2010, 23 years after its original compilation, Gonzalez’s book was published as One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley. However, a review done at my request concluded that none of the 50 cases Gonzalez reported provide compelling evidence of of a cure [41]. At least 41 of the patients had been treated with surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy that could have been responsible for the length of their survival. The rest lacked biopsy evidence and/or had cancers that typically have long survival times. In July 2015, Gonzalez’s office announced that he had suddenly collapsed and died, apparently of a heart-related cause.

Laetrile

Laetrile, which achieved great notoriety during the 1970s and early 1980s, is the trade name for a synthetic relative of amygdalin, a chemical in the kernels of apricot pits, apple seeds, bitter almonds, and some other stone fruits and nuts. Many laetrile promoters have called it “vitamin B17″ and falsely claimed that cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease that laetrile can cure. Claims for laetrile’s efficacy have varied considerably [39]. First it was claimed to prevent and cure cancer. Then it was claimed not to cure, but to “control” cancer while giving patients an increased feeling of well being. More recently, laetrile has been claimed to be effective, not by itself, but as one component of “metabolic therapy” (described below).

Laetrile was first used to treat cancer patients in California in the 1950s. According to proponents, it kills tumor cells selectively while leaving normal cells alone. Although laetrile has been promoted as safe and effective, clinical evidence indicates that it is neither [40]. When subjected to enzymatic breakdown in the body, it forms glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide [42]. Some cancer patients treated with laetrile have suffered nausea, vomiting, headache and dizziness, and a few have died from cyanide poisoning. Laetrile has been tested in at least 20 animal tumor models and found to have no benefit either alone or together with other substances. Several case reviews have found no benefit for the treatment of cancer in humans.

In response to political pressure, a clinical trial was begun in 1982 by the Mayo Clinic and three other U.S. cancer centers under NCI sponsorship. Laetrile and “metabolic therapy” were administered as recommended by their promoters. The patients had advanced cancer for which no proven treatment was known. Of 178 patients, not one was cured or stabilized, and none had any lessening of any cancer-related symptoms. The median survival rate was about five months from the start of therapy. In those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. Several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [43].

In 1975, a class action suit was filed to stop the FDA from interfering with the sale and distribution of laetrile. Early in the case, a federal district court judge in Oklahoma issued orders allowing cancer patients to import a six-month supply of laetrile for personal use if they could obtain a physician’s affidavit that they were “terminal.” In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is not possible to be certain who is terminal and that even if it were possible, both terminally ill patients and the general public deserve protection from fraudulent cures. In 1987, after further appeals were denied, the district judge (a strong proponent of laetrile) finally yielded to the higher courts and terminated the affidavit system [39]. Few sources of laetrile are now available within the United States, but it still is utilized at several Mexican clinics.

Livingston-Wheeler Regimen

Virginia C. Livingston, M.D., who died in 1990, postulated that cancer is caused by a bacterium she called Progenitor cryptocides, which invades the body when “immunity is stressed or weakened.” She claimed to combat this by strengthening the body’s immune system with vaccines (including one made from the patient’s urine); “detoxification” with enemas; digestive enzymes; a vegetarian diet that avoided chicken, eggs, and sugar; vitamin and mineral supplements; visualization; and stress reduction. She claimed to have a very high recovery rate but published no clinical data to support this. Scientists who attempted to isolate the organism she postulated found that it was a common skin bacterium. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center compared 78 of its patients with similar patients treated at the Livingston-Wheeler Clinic. All had advanced cancers for which no proven treatment was known. As expected, the study found no difference in average survival time of the two groups. However, Livingston-Wheeler patients reported more appetite difficulties and pain [44]. The treatment Livingston originated is now offered at the Livingston Foundation Medical Center in San Diego.

Macrobiotics

Macrobiotics is a quasireligious philosophical system that advocates a semivegetarian diet. (“Macrobiotic” means “way of long life.”) Macrobiotic diets have been promoted for maintaining general health and for preventing and “relieving” cancer and other diseases. The optimal diet is said to balance “yin” and “yang” foods. It is composed of whole grains (50 to 60% of each meal), vegetables (25 to 30% of each meal), whole beans or soybean-based products (5 to 10% of daily food), nuts and seeds (small amounts as snacks), miso soup, herbal teas, and small amounts of white meat or seafood once or twice weekly. Some macrobiotic diets contain adequate amounts of nutrients, but others do not.

Macrobiotic practitioners may base their recommendations on “pulse diagnosis” and other unscientific procedures related to Chinese medicine [45]. Pulse diagnosis supposedly involves six pulses at each wrist that correspond to twelve internal spheres of bodily function. Other diagnostic methods include “ancestral diagnosis,” “astrological diagnosis,” “aura and vibrational diagnosis,” “environmental diagnosis” (including consideration of celestial influences” and tidal motions), and “spiritual diagnosis” (an evaluation of “atmospheric vibrational conditions” to identify spiritual influences, including “visions of the future”).

Today’s leading proponent is Michio Kushi, founder and president of the Kushi Institute in Brookline, Massachusetts. According to Institute publications, the macrobiotic way of life should include chewing food at least 50 times per mouthful (or until it becomes liquid), not wearing synthetic or woolen clothing next to the skin, avoiding long hot baths or showers, having large green plants in your house to enrich the oxygen content of the air, and singing a happy song every day. Kushi claims that cancer is largely due to improper diet, thinking, and way of life, and can be influenced by changing these factors. He recommends yin foods for cancers due to excess yang, and yang foods for tumors that are predominantly yin. His books contain case histories of people whose cancers have supposedly disappeared after they adopted macrobiotic eating. However, the only reports of efficacy are testimonials by patients, many of whom received responsible therapy [46]. The diet itself can cause cancer patients to undergo serious weight loss [47]. In July 2001, Kushi’s wife and colleague Aveline died of cervical cancer. According to an Associated Press obituary, she underwent standard radiation treatment when the cancer was discovered. When the cancer spread to her bones and she was told that no standard treatment was available, relied on acupuncture and “Eastern” methods [48].

Metabolic Therapy

Proponents of “metabolic therapy” claim to diagnose abnormalities at the cellular level and correct them by normalizing the patient’s metabolism. They regard cancer, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and other “degenerative” diseases as the result of metabolic imbalance caused by a buildup of “toxic substances” in the body. They claim that scientific practitioners merely treat the symptoms of the disease while they treat the cause by removing “toxins” and strengthening the immune system so the body can heal itself. The “toxins” are neither defined nor objectively measurable. “Metabolic” treatment regimens vary from practitioner to practitioner and may include a “natural food” diet, coffee enemas, vitamins, minerals, glandulars, enzymes, laetrile, and various other nostrums that are not legally marketable in the United States. No scientific study has ever shown that “metabolic therapy” or any of its components is effective against cancer or any other serious disease.

The most visible proponent of “metabolic therapy” was Harold Manner, Ph.D., a biology professor who announced in 1977 that he had cured cancer in mice with injections of laetrile, enzymes, and vitamin A. (Actually, he digested the tumors by injecting them with digestive enzymes, which cannot cure cancers that have metastasized.) During the early 1980s, Manner left his teaching position and became affiliated with a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. Although he claimed a 74% success rate in treating cancers, there is no evidence that he kept track of patients after they left his clinic [49]. He died in 1988, but the clinic is still operating.

Pau D’arco

Pau d’arco tea, sold through health food stores and by mail, is also called taheebo, lapacho, lapacho morado, ipe roxo, or ipes. The tea is claimed to be an ancient Inca Indian remedy prepared from the inner bark of various species of Tabebuia, an evergreen tree native to the West Indies and Central and South America. However, stories about its origins contain geographic and botanical errors. Proponents claim that pau d’arco tea is effective against cancer and many other ailments. Tabebuia woods contains lapachol, which has been demonstrated to have antitumor activity in a few animal tumor models. However, no published study has shown a significant effect on cancer in humans. Studies during the early 1970s found that lapachol is not as readily absorbed by humans as by rats, and that plasma levels high enough to influence tumors would be accompanied by anticoagulant effects. Even low doses can cause nausea and vomiting and can interfere with blood clotting [50]. Some researchers believe that lapachol should be studied further using vitamin K to inhibit its anticoagulant activity .

Psychic Surgery

Psychic surgery is claimed to remove tumors without leaving a skin wound. Actually, its practitioners use sleight-of-hand to create the illusion that surgery is being performed. A false finger or thumb may be used to store a red dye that appears as “blood” when the skin is “cut.” Animal parts or cotton wads soaked in the dye are palmed and then exhibited as “diseased organs” supposedly removed from the patient’s body. (However, one Philippine “healer” has been reported to use human blood, which raises the possibility that HIV or hepatitis B could be transmitted.) The American Cancer Society has concluded that “all demonstrations to date of psychic surgery have been done by various forms of trickery.” [51] Most “psychic surgeons” practice in the Philippines or Brazil, but some have made tours within the United States. A few have been prosecuted for theft and/or practicing medicine without a license [52].

Psychologic Methods

Various psychologic methods are being promoted to cancer patients as cures or adjuncts to other treatment. The techniques include imagery, visualization, meditation, progressive muscle relaxation, and various forms of psychotherapy. These techniques may reduce stress, alleviate depression, help control pain, and enhance patients’ feelings of mastery and control. Individual and group support can have a positive impact on quality of life and overall attitude. A positive attitude may increase a patient’s chance of surviving cancer by increasing compliance with proven treatment. However, it has not been demonstrated that emotions directly influence the course of the disease.

Bernie Siegel, M.D., author of Love, Medicine & Miracles and Peace, Love & Healing, claims that “happy people generally don’t get sick” and that “one’s attitude toward oneself is the single most important factor in healing or staying well.” Siegel also states that “a vigorous immune system can overcome cancer if it is not interfered with, and emotional growth toward greater self-acceptance and fulfillment helps keep the immune system strong.” However, he has published no scientific study supporting these claims. A 10-year study co-authored by Siegel found that 34 breast cancer patients participating in his program did not live longer after diagnosis than comparable nonparticipants. The program consisted of weekly peer support and family therapy, individual counseling, and the use of positive imagery [53]. In November 1998, Siegel sent a series of email messages to Dr. Barrett in which he said that the study bearing his name had been done by a student and was improperly designed.

O. Carl Simonton, M.D., claimed that cancers can be affected by relaxation and visualization techniques. He claimed that this approach can lessen fears and tension, strengthen the patient’s will to live, increase optimism, and alter the course of a malignancy by strengthening the immune system. However, he never published the results of any well-designed study testing his ideas. Simonton theorized that the brain can stimulate endocrine glands to inspire the immune system to attack cancer cells. He and his wife Stephanie (a psychotherapist) taught cancer patients to imagine their cancer being destroyed by their white blood cells. However, there is no evidence that white cells actually attack cancer cells in this manner or that “immune suppression” is a factor in the development of common cancers.

Simonton’s book Getting Well Again included reports on patients who got better after using his methods. However, an analysis of five of the reports that might seem most impressive to laypersons noted that two of the patients had undergone standard treatment, one had a slow-growing tumor, and one probably did not have cancer. The fifth patient’s tumor was treatable by standard means [54].

Some people suggest that Simonton’s program may have positive effects by helping people to relax and to feel that they are “doing something” positive. Although this approach is physically harmless, it can waste people’s time and money and encourage some to abandon effective care. It can also cause people to feel ashamed or guilty that some inner inadequacy caused them to develop cancer and is interfering with their recovery. Patients seeking a support program should select one that is based on scientific principles and has competent professional supervision.

Revici Cancer Control

Revici Cancer Control (also called lipid therapy and “biologically guided chemotherapy”) is based on the notion that cancer is caused by an imbalance between constructive (“anabolic”) and destructive (“catabolic”) body processes. Its main proponent, Emanuel Revici, M.D., prescribed lipid alcohols, zinc, iron, and caffeine, which he classified as anabolic, and fatty acids, sulfur, selenium, and magnesium, which he classified as catabolic. His formulations were based on his interpretation of the specific gravity, pH (acidity), and surface tension of single samples of the patient’s urine. Scientists who have offered to evaluate Revici’s methods were unable to reach an agreement with him on procedures to ensure a valid test [55]. However, his method of urinary interpretation is obviously not valid. The specific gravity of urine reflects the concentration of dissolved substances and depends largely on the amount of fluid a person consumes. The acidity depends mainly on diet, but varies considerably throughout the day. Thus, even when these values are useful for a metabolic determination, information from a single urine sample would be meaningless. The surface tension of urine has no medically recognized diagnostic value. In 1993, following a lengthy struggle with New York State licensing authorities, Revici’s medical license was permanently revoked. He died in January 1998 at the age of 101.

714X

714X is a chemical solution produced in Quebec by Gaston Naessens, who also operates the International Academy of Somatidian Orthobiology. He claims that 714X can “fluidify the lymph” and “direct nitrogen into the cancerous cells in order to stop their toxic secretions which block the organism’s defense system.” 714X has been analyzed by the Canadian Health Protection Branch and found to contain a mixture of camphor, ammonium chloride and nitrate, sodium chloride, ethyl alcohol, and water. The Health Protection Branch has received no scientific data to support claims that 714X can cure cancer or AIDS. Its Expert Advisory Committee has deplored its use for these purposes and warned that there could be adverse side effects [56]. In 1956, in connection with alleged cancer remedy called GN-24, Naessens was convicted of illegal medical practice and ordered by a French court to pay the maximum applicable fine. He was prosecuted again in 1964 after another alleged cancer remedy he administered in Corsica was proven not to work [57].

Shark Cartilage

Powdered shark cartilage is purported to contain a protein that inhibits the growth of new blood vessels needed for the spread of cancer. Although a modest anti-angiogenic effect has been observed in laboratory experiments, it has not been demonstrated that feeding shark cartilage to humans significantly inhibits angiogenesis in patients with cancer. Even if direct applications were effective, oral administration would not work because the protein would be digested rather than absorbed intact into the body. (If the proteins could enter the body, they would cause an immune response that would make the individual allergic to them and could trigger disastrous allergic responses with further exposure to the protein.)

Nevertheless, in the spring of 1993, “60 Minutes” aired a program promoting the claims of biochemist/entrepreneur I. William Lane, Ph.D., author of the book Sharks Don’t Get Cancer. The program highlighted a Cuban study of 29 “terminal” cancer patients who received shark-cartilage preparations. Narrator Mike Wallace filmed several of the patients doing exercise and reported that most of them felt better several weeks after the treatment had begun. The fact that “feeling better” does not indicate whether a cancer treatment is effective was not mentioned. Nor was the fact that sharks do get cancer, even of their cartilage. NCI officials subsequently reviewed the Cuban data and concluded that they were “incomplete and unimpressive.” [58]

In May 1997, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting, researchers reported a study that found shark cartilage ineffective against advanced cancer in adults with a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. The study followed 58 people who were prescribed oral doses of shark cartilage as their only form of anti-cancer treatment. After 12 weeks, none achieved a complete or partial response to the shark cartilage treatment. Only ten showed no progression of their cancer, and only two had a quantifiable improvement in quality of life. (The fact that ten cancers did not progress is not evidence that the shark cartilage was responsible for this. The progression of cancer is not always rapid.) The researchers concluded: “Shark cartilage was inactive in patients with advanced stages of cancer, specifically in breast, colon, lung, and prostate cancer.” The study was sponsored by Cancer Treatment Research Foundation, Cartilage Technologies (a manufacturer), and Cancer Treatment Centers of America. A few months later, Cartilage Technologies announced that it would support no additional research on shark cartilage as a cancer remedy [59].

Government agencies have taken action against at least three companies marketing shark cartilage. In September 1997, the FDA warned Lane Labs-USA, of Allendale, New Jersey, to stop claiming that its shark cartilage product BeneFin can help fight cancer, arthritis, and psoriasis [60]. In December 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit intended to stop the company from continuing its illegal marketing [61]. In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission obtained two consent agreements barring unsubstantiated claims for shark-cartilage products. Nutriveda, Inc., of Brooklyn, New York, had claimed that its product Cardilet was effective against cancer, rheumatism, arthritis, diabetes, fibroids, bursitis, circulatory problems, and cysts. Body Systems Technology, of Castleberry, Florida, had advertised that its product was effective against cancer. In June 2000, the FTC announced that Dr. Lane and Lane Labs-USA had signed consent agreements to stop illegal claims for Benefin and to pay $550,000 in penalties and $450 toward the cost of an approved clinical trial involving shark cartilage [62] The trial found no benefit [63].

Vitamin C

The claim that vitamin C is useful in the treatment of cancer is largely attributable to Linus Pauling, Ph.D. During the mid-1970s, Pauling began claiming that high doses of vitamin C are effective in preventing and curing cancer. In 1976 and 1978, he and a Scottish surgeon, Ewan Cameron, reported that a group of 100 terminal cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily had survived three to four times longer than historically matched patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements [64,65]. However, Dr. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the NCI, found that the patient groups were not comparable. The vitamin C patients were Cameron’s, while the other patients were managed by other physicians. Cameron’s patients were started on vitamin C when he labeled them “untreatable” by other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared to the survival of the “control” patients after they were labeled untreatable by their doctors. DeWys found that Cameron’s patients were labeled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease-which meant that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other doctors’ patients and would naturally be expected to live longer [66]. Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. All three studies found that patients given 10 g of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo [67-69]. Despite many years of taking huge daily amounts of vitamin C, both Pauling and his wife Ava died of cancer—she in 1981 and he in 1994.

Conspiracy Theories

Quacks typically charge that the medical profession, drug companies, the food industry, government agencies, and/or other “vested interests” are conspiring against “natural” cancer cures. No such conspiracy has ever been exposed. Yet many patients—especially those whom standard medicine cannot cure—embrace the notion that a small but dedicated band of rebels is defying the medical establishment by making natural cures available. And desperate patients may find it more comfortable to believe that cures are being suppressed than to feel that their situation is hopeless.

The conspiracy charge has two common scenarios. In one, opposition is based on fear of competition. In the other, a cure discovered within the establishment is suppressed. Neither of these situations makes sense [70,71]

For Additional Information

  • The American Cancer Society (800 227-2345 or a local office) can supply position papers on many questionable methods. Direct advice can be obtained from the Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation Ombudsman’s program (301 657-8401), the Consumer Health Information Research Institute (816 228-4595), and the National Council Against Health Fraud (909 824-4690).
  • The NCI’s Information Service (1-800-4-CANCER) answers questions and provides literature about the latest cancer treatments, clinical trials, and community services for patients and their families. Physicians can obtain information on treatment protocols, results, and clinical trials through NCI’s Physician Data Query (PDQ), a computerized database that is updated monthly. This enables most cancer patients to benefit from the latest scientific knowledge without having to travel far. Neither the Cancer Information Service nor the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine provides detailed information on the safety or efficacy of questionable methods.
  • Unconventional Cancer Treatments, is an excellent 300-page book issued 1990 by the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress. It is out of print but is available on this web site.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer treatment. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 1993.
  2. Janssen WF: Cancer quackery: Past and present. FDA Consumer 11(6):27-32, 1977.
  3. Holland JF. The Krebiozen story: Is cancer quackery dead? JAMA 200:213-218, 1967.
  4. Lerner IJ, Kennedy BJ. The prevalance of questionable methods of cancer treatment in the United States. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 42:181-191, 1992.
  5. Jarvis WT. How quackery harms. In Barrett S, Cassileth BR, editors. Dubious Cancer Treatment. Tampa, FL: American Cancer Society, Florida Division, 1991. [Online summary]
  6. Brigden ML: Unorthodox therapy and your cancer patient. Postgraduate Medicine 81:271-280, 1987.
  7. Marshall E. The politics of alternative medicine. Science 265:2000-2002, 1994.
  8. Green S. “Antineoplastons”: An unproved cancer therapy. JAMA 267:2924-2928, 1992.
  9. Texas Attorney General’s Office. Morales halts use of unapproved cancer treatment. News release, Feb 10, 1998.
  10. The antineoplaston anomaly: How a drug was used for decades in thousands of patients, with no safety, efficacy data. Cancer Letter, Sept 25, 1998.
  11. Gelb L. Unproven cancer treatments: Help or hoax? FDA Consumer 26(2):10-15, 1992.
  12. Trull L. The Cancell Controversy. Norfolk, VA: Hampton Roads, 1993.
  13. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: Electronic devices. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 44:115-127, 1994.
  14. Gelband H and others. Essiac. In Gelband H and others. Unconventional cancer treatments. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990, pp 71-75.
  15. Unproven methods of cancer management: Fresh cell therapy. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 41:126-128, 1991.
  16. American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Gerson method. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:252-256, 1990.
  17. Green S. A critique of the rationale for cancer treatment with coffee enemas and diet. JAMA 268:3224-3227, 1992.
  18. Ginsberg MM and others. Campylobacter sepsis associated with “nutritional therapy”—California. MMWR 30:294-295, 1981.
  19. Lowell J. The Gerson Clinic. Nutrition Forum 3:9-12, 1986.
  20. Austin S, Dale EB, DeKadt S. Long-term follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 5(1):74-76, 1994.
  21. American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Greek Cancer Cure. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:368-371, 1990.
  22. Lowell J. Hoxsey treatment still available. Nutrition Forum 4:89-91, 1987.
  23. Gelband H and others. Hoxsey Treatment. In Gelband H and others. Unconventional Cancer Treatments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990, pp 80-81.
  24. Loprinzi CL and others. Placebo-controlled trial of hydrazine sulfate in patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 12:1126-1129, 1994.
  25. Kosty MP and others. Cisplatin, vinblastine, and hydrazine sulfate in advanced, non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 12:1113-1120, 1994. [Full Text]
  26. Loprinzi CL and others. Randomized placebo-controlled evaluation of hydrazine sulfate in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 12:1121-1125, 1994.
  27. Nadel MV. Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.Cancer Drug Research—Contrary to Allegations, Hydrazine Sulfate Studies Were Not Flawed. Document No. HEHS-95-141. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, September 1995. [PDF format]
  28. MI and others. Fatal hepatorenal failure associated with hydrazine sulfate. Annals of Internal Medicine 133:877-880, 2000. [PDF]
  29. Black M, Hussain H. Hydrazine, cancer, the internet, isoniazid, and the liver. Annals of Internal Medicine133:911-913, 2000. [PDF]
  30. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: Hydrogen peroxide and other “hyperoxygenation” therapies. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 43:47-55, 1993.
  31. Obara Kand others. Germanium poisoning: Glinical symptoms and renal damage caused by long-term intake of germanium. Japanese Journal of Medicine 30:67-72, 1992.
  32. Green S. Immunoaugmentative therapy. An unproven cancer treatment. JAMA 270:1719-1723, 1993.
  33. Curt GA, Katterhagen G, Mahaney F. Immunoaugmentative therapy: A primer on the perils of unproved treatments. JAMA 255:505-507, 1986.
  34. Gelband H and others. Immuno-Augmentative Therapy. In Gelband H and others. Unconventional Cancer Treatments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990, pp 129-147.
  35. Working group on unproven methods in oncology. Iscador. File No. 10E. Bern: Swiss Cancer League, 1984.
  36. Mistletoe extracts (PDQ): Overview. NCA Web site, accessed 8/22/04.
  37. Dentist directed McQueen therapy. ADA News, Nov 17, 1980.
  38. Arena S. Doctor liable in death of patient. New York Daily News, April 20, 2000.
  39. Wilson B: The rise and fall of laetrile. Nutrition Forum 5:33-40, 1988.
  40. American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Laetrile. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 41:187-192, 1991.
  41. Moran PJ, Lubetkin, L. Book Review: One Man Alone: An investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley. Cancer Treatment Watch, July 24, 2015.
  42. Herbert V. Pseudovitamins. In Shils ME, Young VR, editors. Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1988, pp 471-477.
  43. Moertel C and others. A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 306:201-206, 1982
  44. Cassileth BR and others. Survival and quality of life among patients receiving unproven as compared with conventional cancer therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 324:1180-1185, 1991.
  45. Raso J. A Kushi seminar for professionals. Nutrition Forum 7:17-21, 1990.
  46. American Cancer Society: Unproven methods of cancer management: Macrobiotic diets for the treatment of cancer. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 39:248-251, 1989.
  47. Dwyer J. The macrobiotic diet: No cancer cure. Nutrition Forum 7:9-11, 1990.
  48. Associated Press. Aveline Kushi, 78, Leading proponent of macrobiotic diet. Newsday, July 6, 2001.
  49. South J. The Manner Clinic. Nutrition Forum 5:61-67, 1988.
  50. Tyler VE. Pau d’arco. Nutrition Forum 2:8, 1985.
  51. American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: ‘psychic surgery.’ CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:184-188, 1990.
  52. True, GN II. The facts about faith healing. Health Frontiers, accessed Sept 3, 2000.
  53. Gellert G, Maxwell RM, Siegel BS. Survival of breast cancer patients receiving adjunctive psychosocial support therapy: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 11:66-69, 1993.
  54. Friedlander ER. Mental imagery. In Barrett S, Cassileth BR. Dubious cancer treatment. Tampa, Florida: American Cancer Society, Florida Division, 1991, pp 73-78.
  55. American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Revici method. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 39:119-122, 1989.
  56. Canadian Health Protection Branch. 714X: An unproven product. Issues, Jan 24, 1990.
  57. American Cancer Society. Naessens Serum, or Anablast. Position paper, 1967.
  58. Mathews J. Media feeds frenzy over shark cartilage as cancer treatment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 85:1190-1191, 1993.
  59. Miller DR and others. Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage in the treatment of advanced cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 16(11): 3649-3655, 1998.
  60. Ellsworth DI. Letter to Andrew Lane, President of Lane Laboratories. Sept 24, 1997.
  61. FDA takes action against firm marketing unapproved drug. Talk Paper T99-56., Dec 10, 1999.
  62. Operation Cure.all” nets shark cartilage promoters: two companies charged with making false and unsubstantiated claims for their shark cartilage and skin cream as cancer treatments. FTC news release, June 29, 2000.
  63. Loprinzi CL and others. Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 104(1), July 1, 2005.
  64. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 73:3685-3689, 1976.
  65. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 75:4538-4542, 1978.
  66. DeWys WD. How to evaluate a new treatment for cancer. Your Patient and Cancer 2(5):31-36, 1982.
  67. Creagan ET and others. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. New England Journal of Medicine 301:687-690, 1979.
  68. Moertel CG and others. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. A randomized double-blind comparison. New England Journal of Medicine 312:137-141, 1985.
  69. Tschetter L and others. A community-based study of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in patients with advanced cancer. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2:92, 1983.
  70. Novella S, Barrett S. Is there a conspiracy to suppress cancer cures? Quackwatch, June 22, 2000.
  71. Higgins M. Is there really a conspiracy to suppress cancer cures? Cancer Treatment Watch, Oct 24, 2007.

Portions of this article were originally published with Victor Herbert, M.D. as coauthor in Cancer Medicine, 4th Edition, published by Williams & Wilkins (1996). At that time, Dr. Herbert was Professor of Medicine, The Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Chief, Hematology and Nutrition Research Laboratory, the Bronx Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Read more at: quackwatch.org

 

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-02-questionable-cancer-therapies/feed/ 0
Facebook Breast Scam: I feel so stupid, says victim. /cancerscams/2016-08-02-facebook-breast-scam-i-feel-so-stupid-says-victim/ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-facebook-breast-scam-i-feel-so-stupid-says-victim/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-02-facebook-breast-scam-i-feel-so-stupid-says-victim

She never thought she would fall victim to a scammer.

“Thinking back, I feel so stupid,” said the 20-year-old flight attendant.

Melissa (not her real name) had fallen for a man’s devious scheme to dupe her and several other women into sending him photos of their breasts.

Speaking to The New Paper over the phone, she said: “My family and boyfriend scolded me for trusting someone so easily.

“I still feel so angry at the scammer. I’ll punch his face if I ever find out who he is.”

One afternoon in May, Melissa received a message from a female friend whom she had not spoken to recently. The message over Facebook asked Melissa for help with a breast cancer project the “friend” was working on.

Melissa did not know that her friend’s Facebook Messenger App had been hacked by a man.

“She said she needed photos of the front and side view of my breasts for an online project.

“She also said she had already asked other people, but needed a few more to complete the project.”

Her first thought was to help the “friend”. So she thought nothing of the strange request and obliged.

The “friend” had also said the pictures of the breasts would be used to diagnose breast cancer.

“How could I believe that? I know you can’t tell if someone has breast cancer from a photo alone,” said Melissa.

The “friend” also promised Melissa a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge and $600 as a reward.

But after Melissa sent the photos, the “friend” persisted in asking for a picture that included Melissa’s face.

“That’s when I started getting suspicious. What kind of breast check-up would need my face in the photo?”

Melissa texted her friend to ask if she had messaged her on Facebook.

To her horror, the friend said she had not.

“I was really, really shocked. I thought to myself, ‘What have I done?’ I should have thought twice about doing something like that,” said Melissa.

Melissa, together with her friend and another victim who had been tricked by the same hacked account, made a police report on May 2.

The police managed to establish the identity of the suspect, who was arrested on Monday night.

The 27-year-old suspect was arrested along Orchard Road, said the police in a statement on Tuesday.

SIMILAR SCAMS

Since May 2, several victims have made reports about similar scams.

Victims reported that their friends appeared to contact them on Facebook Messenger and asked them to send photos of their bare chests.

Some of the victims were promised cash and gifts when the photos were sent.

They realised later that their friends had not made the requests.

The police said the suspect is being investigated for a number of possible offences, including cheating by impersonating others and unauthorised access to computer material.

If found guilty of cheating, he could be jailed for up to five years and fined.

For the hacking offence, he could be fined up to $5,000 and jailed up to two years.

The police warned the public to seek verification if they receive dubious messages or requests.

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-02-facebook-breast-scam-i-feel-so-stupid-says-victim/feed/ 0
Port Adelaide mother ‘faked’ ovarian cancer /cancerscams/2016-08-02-port-adelaide-mother-faked-ovarian-cancer/ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-port-adelaide-mother-faked-ovarian-cancer/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-02-port-adelaide-mother-faked-ovarian-cancer A Port Adelaide mother of three is accused of faking ovarian cancer to defraud her family and friends of more than $300,000.

(Article by Stacey Lee)

Victims of the alleged scam say Kelly Smith used her son’s illness and her fake cancer to gain the funds.

Dubbed Adelaide’s Belle Gibson, Ms Smith allegedly told those close to her she needed financial help to pay for her son’s specialist care.

A family friend, who didn’t want to be named, told 7News the alleged scam has hurt the community.

“They gave thinking that they could change the outcome for that family and it wasn’t true,” she said.

fraud4art

The family friend who has been hurt by the alleged con. Source: 7News

“People have taken from their super, people have withdrawn from their home loans.

“I think when it’s someone close to you and you think they’re going to go through something so tragic, you do everything you can to make sure that doesn’t happen to them.”

fraud2ART

Fraud accused Kelly Smith. Source: 7News

The 38-year-old didn’t appear in court today over claims she conned family and friends into giving her more than $325,000.

Legal representation appeared on Ms Smith’s behalf, and were told she must be present for her next appearance in September – otherwise an arrest warrant will be issued.

 

fraud1ART

The 38-year-old didn’t appear in court today over claims she conned family and friends into giving her more than $325,000. Legal representation appeared on Ms Smith’s behalf, and were told she must be present for her next appearance in September – otherwise an arrest warrant will be issued.

“It just hurts everyone and there’s too many people that have given and been hurt by this and trusted her,” the family friend said.

“When someone tells so many lies, they start believing it and I think that was the case here.”

Ms Smith declined to comment when contacted by 7News.

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-02-port-adelaide-mother-faked-ovarian-cancer/feed/ 0
Single mom of two ‘fakes terminal cancer to scam community out of $60k and even a therapy dog before skipping town’ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-single-mom-of-two-fakes-terminal-cancer-to-scam-community-out-of-60k-and-even-a-therapy-dog-before-skipping-town/ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-single-mom-of-two-fakes-terminal-cancer-to-scam-community-out-of-60k-and-even-a-therapy-dog-before-skipping-town/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-02-single-mom-of-two-fakes-terminal-cancer-to-scam-community-out-of-60k-and-even-a-therapy-dog-before-skipping-town A New York mom of two teenage boys is accused of duping her friends out of $60,000 by faking terminal cancer.

(Article by Alexandra Klausner)

Outraged former pals of single mom Shivonie Deokaran say that the Ardsley woman posted photos to a Go Fund me site on which claimed she had leukemia and just 18 months to live.

The fundraising site to cover the woman’s ‘mounting medical bills’ has since been taken down.

32A4D01000000578-3514157-Single_mom_Shivonie_Deokaran_is_accused_of_moving_to_Florida_wit-m-3_1459286146753

Single mom: Shivonie Deokaran (pictured) is accused of moving to Florida with her two sons (one is pictured above) after allegedly faking cancer and scamming her community out of $60,000 in donations

32A4D01400000578-3514157-image-a-6_1459271545281

Fundraising site: Outraged former pals of single mom Shivonie Deokaran say that the Ardsley woman posted photos to a Go Fund me site on which claimed she had leukemia and just 18 months to live

Donations poured in from concerned neighbors and even the Town Supervisor Paul Feiner stepped into to help, according to CW39.

Feiner raised $12,000 and the Go Fund Me raised $25,000. In addition to large chunks of money, people even chipped in to buy Deokaran a therapy dog named Gia.

In November, a spaghetti dinner fundraiser held by her son’s high school football team raised more than $16,000, according to Inside Edition.

When cops asked for medical records to prove Deokaran’s diagnosis, they say that she closed her Indian restaurant and moved with her family to Florida.

‘It’s an open investigation,’ Ardsley Police Officer Tony Vacca told Inside Edition on Monday.

‘That’s all we can elaborate on. We don’t want to jeopardize the case.’

‘It’s disappointing that somebody would do that,’ firefighter John Clear said.

In a phone interview with Inside Edition, Deokaran’s boyfriend, Nikhlesh Parekh, said Deokaran’s moved to Florida in February for her health needs.

He said she is dying but has stopped chemotherapy and is receiving alternative health treatments. 

32A4D01800000578-3514157-image-a-22_1459272630926

Team effort: Deokaran is pictured here with her twon sons and her boyfriend. her family is said to have helped her to raise fund for her alleged illness

32A4D00800000578-3514157-image-a-2_1459271528477

Help from her sons: In November, a spaghetti dinner fundraiser held by her son’s high school football team raised more than $16,000

Read more at: dailymail.co.uk

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-02-single-mom-of-two-fakes-terminal-cancer-to-scam-community-out-of-60k-and-even-a-therapy-dog-before-skipping-town/feed/ 0
Unbelievable scam of cancer industry blown wide open: $100 billion a year spent on toxic chemotherapy for many FAKE diagnoses… National Cancer Institute’s shocking admission affects millions of patients /cancerscams/2016-08-02-unbelievable-scam-of-cancer-industry-blown-wide-open-100-billion-a-year-spent-on-toxic-chemotherapy-for-many-fake-diagnoses-national-cancer-institutes-shocking-admission-affects-millions-of-pat/ /cancerscams/2016-08-02-unbelievable-scam-of-cancer-industry-blown-wide-open-100-billion-a-year-spent-on-toxic-chemotherapy-for-many-fake-diagnoses-national-cancer-institutes-shocking-admission-affects-millions-of-pat/#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://162.244.66.231/cancerscams/2016-08-02-unbelievable-scam-of-cancer-industry-blown-wide-open-100-billion-a-year-spent-on-toxic-chemotherapy-for-many-fake-diagnoses-national-cancer-institutes-shocking-admission-affects-millions-of-pat With $100 billion a year now being spent on toxic chemotherapy treatments that damage patients and cause “chemo brain” side effects, a panel of cancer experts commissioned by the National Cancer Institute publicly admitted two years ago that tens of millions of “cancer cases” aren’t cancer at all.

(Article by Mike Adams)

Tens of millions of people who have been diagnosed with “cancer” by crooked oncologists — and scared into medically unjustified but extremely profitable chemotherapy treatments — never had any sort of life-threatening condition to begin with, scientists have confirmed.

“The word ‘cancer’ often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime,” says the abstract of the published study entitled Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer An Opportunity for Improvement (JAMA. 2013;310(8):797-798. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.108415)

The article goes on to explain that many tissue lesions in human biology are being diagnosed with the scary-sounding term “cancer” even though they would not lead to any real harm in the body even if left untreated.

$100 billion a year generated by the cancer industry to treat many patients who never had “real” cancer in the first place

Oncologists and the breast cancer industry prey on systematic over-diagnosis of cancer in order to scare patients into unnecessary treatments. These treatments are helping generate $100 billion a year in chemotherapy revenues, often for so-called “cancers” that shouldn’t even count as cancer in the first place.

“Physicians, patients and the general public must recognize that overdiagnosis is common and occurs more frequently with cancer screening,” warns the NCI-commissioned science article in JAMA.

A 2002 editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine maintained that the efficacy of mammograms for younger women is an open question. “The debate is worth following closely,” concluded the editor of the journal, “because women are deciding about breast cancer screening, and it’s our role to keep them informed as best we can.” Yet it is worth remembering that “mammography screening may lead to an overdiagnosis of breast cancer, that is, the detection of a tumor that would not have become clinically detectable in the patient’s lifetime.” – from the book “What If Medicine Disappeared” by Gerald E Markle.

Cancer industry runs on scientific quackery and sleazy fear-based sales tactics to recruit patients

This all confirms what I’ve said over and over again as a consumer health advocate: The cancer industry uses scare tactics that smack of “medical terrorism” to recruit frightened women and men into unnecessary — but highly profitable — cancer “treatments” that benefit no one other than the cancer industry quacks (oncologists).

As first published in Natural News:

The report drops a few major bombshells on the way that many cancers are diagnosed. Breast cancer, for instance, is sometimes not breast cancer at all but rather a benign condition such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). However, untold millions of women with DCIS have been misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and subsequently treated for a condition that likely never would have caused them any health problems. And similarly in men, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), a type of premalignant precursor to cancer, is commonly mistreated as if it was actual cancer.

“The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute,” explains Medscape.com about the study. “Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called ‘cancer.'”

Bill Sardi, author of “You Don’t Have to Be Afraid of Cancer Anymore” also adds this:

Overdiagnosis refers to the detection by screening (mammograms, PSA tests) of cancers that would not have become apparent to a doctor or produce symptoms detectable to the patient before an individual died of other causes. Cancer is prevalent, far beyond the number diagnosed in human populations, and most adults will die with, but not of, their cancer. Treatment and invasive or toxic screening methods (radiation from x-rays, mammograms, needle biopsies) for tumors that may never progress to cause symptoms or death in an individual’s lifetime would represent overdiagnosis and needless treatment.

The truth about cancer is slowly emerging as cancer industry quackery gets exposed

The good news in all this is that if you’ve just been diagnosed with cancer, you may be a victim of medical quackery and not really have life-threatening cancer at all.

The first and most important step in any cancer diagnosis is to be skeptical of your oncologist and get informed rather than frightened. Don’t get suckered into a toxic chemotherapy treatment by the cancer quacks who hilariously call themselves doctors. Instead, get educated, get a second opinion and get yourself a holistic or naturopathic physician to learn about a vast array of treatment options, lifestyle changes and other interventions that can prevent, treat or even reverse cancer.

You can start by taking this cancer risk quiz which helps you determine whether you might be at risk for cancer right now.

You’ll also want to watch this “Truth About Cancer” documentary trailer and register for the free upcoming summit that features the most advanced medicine pioneers from around the world revealing little-known secrets about cancer prevention, cancer diagnosis and cancer treatment options.

Think about it: Even the National Cancer Institute’s own scientists publicly admit that many cancer diagnoses are FAKE and shouldn’t be called “cancer” at all. But the quack cancer doctors keep calling them cancer because that’s what earns them more patients and revenues. They aren’t interested in a truthful diagnosis; they’re interested in scaring you into unnecessary chemotherapy!

That’s how the cancer industry has exploded to $100 billion a year in treatment revenues. As also published on Natural News:

In America today, more money is spent to treat cancer than to treat any other disease by far. In fact, according to NBC News, 100 BILLION dollars was spent on cancer drugs just last year alone…

If you are diagnosed with cancer in America today and you choose to trust the medical system with your treatment, you can say goodbye to your financial future. Even if you have health insurance, you will probably end up flat broke one way or the other. Either you will survive and be flat broke, or you will die flat broke.

The following is how one woman described her experience with chemo…

This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn’t help asking myself “If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?” From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.

Don’t become a victim of the FAKE cancer industry

Don’t let yourself be victimized by a fake medical diagnosis from a cancer industry doctors. Learn the truth about cancer and take back your health from the cancer quacks (oncologists) who profit from ignorance and fear.

Read more at: naturalnews.com

]]>
/cancerscams/2016-08-02-unbelievable-scam-of-cancer-industry-blown-wide-open-100-billion-a-year-spent-on-toxic-chemotherapy-for-many-fake-diagnoses-national-cancer-institutes-shocking-admission-affects-millions-of-pat/feed/ 0