Confusing and conflicting information
Genuine treatments exist
But even though an Internet search can easily create confusion, there is actually a wealth of well-documented and credible information available on the web about natural and effective treatments for a variety of serious diseases including cancer and cancer. ; Information that in some cases has been in existence for many years.
But information about such treatments is not widely available in the public domain. Maybe because genuine medicine has had to struggle tremendously hard to be heard clearly. And there are particular reasons why this has been so. Often, it is not so much where to seek genuine treatment and advice as to how to look for it.
Before discussing specific natural cancer treatments in more depth, it is important to briefly examine the reasons for the current levels of confusion surrounding genuine natural medicine as a whole. Deliberate distortion, negative propaganda campaigns, involuntary stupidity You name it. Conventional and alternative, it is taking place on both sides of the fence. We must learn to read between the lines.
Drug dealers with hairpin
In its long and hard battle for proper recognition, genuine natural treatments for serious illnesses have always had to struggle on two fronts. First, they have had to contend with those calculating opportunists, the drug merchants who use all the tricks of the book to undermine any genuine treatment that is not under their jurisdiction. And they will use every possible means to disseminate their harmful misinformation as far as possible to protect their own lucrative market.
No department, private or public, is beyond the reach of its consuming influence. Thriller writer John Le Carre spent many years working in the British Foreign Office and knows very well the politics of big business. His most recent book The Constant Gardener focuses on the corrupt nature of the pharmaceutical industry. In an interview on the subject, Le Carré recently stated:
Big Pharma is dedicated to the deliberate seduction of the medical profession, country by country, all over the world. He is spending a fortune in influencing, employing and buying academic judgment to a point where, within a few years, if Big Pharma remains uncontrolled in his present happy career, unbought medical opinion will be hard to come by.
In opposition to the relentless oneness of large corporations to dominate our health options, Dr. Matthias Rath provides a concise summary of the primary ethics of the merchant’s home:
Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been built by investors, with the aim of replacing effective but not patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money with continuing illnesses. Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry is trying to expand its market – That is to keep diseases on track and find new diseases for your medications. Prevention and cure of diseases damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence.
Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry is fighting the eradication of any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is the main hurdle, why today’s most widespread diseases are expanding, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis and many others. Drugs are not meant to cure diseases. According to health insurers, more than 24,000 drugs are marketed and prescribed with no proven therapeutic value ( AOK magazine April 1998). According to medical associations, the known dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes.
Journal of the American Medical Association , April 15, 1998
Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: a large part of their income is used to fund the explosive benefits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a drug that will not even cure.
Some organizations are spearheading the fight against the pharmaceutical industries in legislating against our use of vitamins and minerals. If this legislation is passed, it will affect you directly in many ways. A website address is included at the end of this article that allows you to register your protest quickly and easily.
Writing in the Guardian on February 7, 2002, senior health drafter Sarah Bosely reports, Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names on articles supporting new Drugs that have not written A growing practice that some fear endangering scientific integrity.
These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say. A doctor said in the article, “What day is it today?” From top to bottom, the conventional healthcare delivery system of the 21st century is being bought and taught to think about treatment and prevention of illness only In pharmaceutical terms.
Aside from the politicking and the big companies pulling strings that are held behind the scenes, our minds are also being washed with the constant foam of emotional, unfounded, pro-establishment, populist headlines such as
- Another breakthrough at UCLA! … (yes, but with mice.)
- It’s in the genes! (Another £ 5 million NOW will help us to isolate the gene in 2010, perhaps.)
- Emotion in the latest results of oncology! (Floating opening point, descending to the usual mixture of hope extinguished by precaution and compulsory appeal in the pocket.)
- Close to the cancer vaccine! (Yes, and certainly since 1975. But please continue to give generously, because next time, it might be you!)
And so it goes. And meanwhile, mortality statistics get worse. Still, money Our Money The Fraudulent Medical Research Campaign says, “The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organization, keep in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry you have been considered by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and By others, as a complete fraud.
Thanks to Dr. Tim O Shea for highlighting the following very important information on the practice of mammography: This is a subject in which the line between advertising and scientific proof has become very blurred. Already in 1976, the American Cancer Society and its government colleague, the National Cancer Institute, completed the routine use of mammography for women under 50 because of their “harmful” (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study in Canada found that women who had routine mammograms before age 50 had also increased breast cancer mortality rates by 36%.
Lorraine Day notes the same findings in her video presentation Cancer does not scare me any better . The reader is directed at these sources and perhaps should consider the opinion of other sources than those who sell the procedure, before making a decision.
- John McDougall MD has done a comprehensive review of relevant literature on mammograms. He points out that the $ 5-13 billion a year generated by mammograms control the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to have routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography can not prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there for up to 12 years! Therefore, it is ridiculous to announce mammography as “early detection”.
The other unbearable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they do not. Conversely, painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the chance of metastasis by as much as 80 percent! Dr. McDougall points out that between 10 and 17 percent of the time, breast cancer is a non-fatal self-limited type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be triggered by the compression force of routine mammography.
Larger studies do not show an increase in the survival rate of routine mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject noted the researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funds for mammography screening because “the benefit obtained is marginal and the damage Caused is substantial. ” (Lancet, July 1, 1995) The harm to which they refer includes constant concern and emotional distress, as well as the tendency to perform unnecessary procedures and tests based on results that have a false positive rate of up to 50 percent . ( New York Times , December 14, 1997)
While the scope of this article does not extend to a thorough exploration of the physical harm that is required by some diagnostic methods and drug treatments, or the corrupting influence that money is exerting on medicine and medical practice, Reader makes sure that conventional medicine has more than its fair share of commercial pressures associated, and especially in the world of cancer, as we will discover later.
This site provides a handy and useful information file for what really happens behind the scenes in the Government and in today’s large companies. Easily navigable, and particularly accurate and unlike many political or surveillance sites today, this website tries to provide the truth to the key issues of today’s politics without playing the tab sensationalist. It is the best political site I have seen, and certainly on par with www.disinformation.org, if not much better!
Grahame Warby, LL.m International Law, Independent Journalist