Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
More information about Scientific Studies
I’ve talked about how Big Pharma makes a worthless substance look good. They use scientists who masterfully compare a type of toxic sludge with another type of toxic sludge. Or they compare how toxic mud acts in the treatment of symptoms. Or they use fantasy statistical tricks. Or design the study to ensure that no substantive information leaves the study. And so on.
But the Scientific The industry (which certainly are not true scientists, are more of an industry) are often given another assignment: make a good substance look bad. In other words, they are sometimes assigned to make a bad substance look good, but in other cases they are assigned to make a good substance look bad.
Let’s talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and Pauling. His study was profound, and could have led to treatments that saved many, many lives. But it was not profitable and did not make doctors look like heroes.
What do you think was the reaction of orthodox medicine to this great discovery? Do you think they tried to find ways to use this discovery and even improve it? Do not be absurd. Their reaction was identical to their reaction to all the other great discoveries in alternative medicine, they wanted to bury the truth.
But one of the participants in the vitamin C study was a two-time Nobel Prize winner. Linus Pauling had already won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and won the Nobel Peace Prize. His integrity was unquestionable. They had made a great discovery. Thus, orthodox medicine could not simply bury its studies. They decided to use a tactic to destroy the truth that had been refined and perfected by the tobacco industry. That tactic was to create new studios They were designed to distract attention from the truth. In this case, however, they had to make a good substance look bad.
But how in the world you make a good substance look bad? Orthodox medicine called Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic to design three fake studies, They did not follow the same protocol of treatment or the same protocol of patient selection nor the same protocol of statistical evaluation that Cameron and Pauling had used (in fact, Dr. Moertel was not involved in the third study).
Now notice this carefully, if the Mayo Clinic would like to know the truth about the Cameron / Pauling studies, they would have taken great care to follow exactly their treatment protocol, patient selection protocol and statistical evaluation protocol. To use high school students again, a group of high school students could have followed the Cameron / Pauling protocols perfectly.
But Dr. Moertel was destined to make a good substance look bad, so he could not follow the same protocols as Pauling and Cameron, he had to modify the protocols to come to a different conclusion. The Mayo Clinic was very careful to make sure they did not follow the Cameron / Pauling protocols. Since they did not follow the protocols, they did not reach the same conclusions.
So who do you think orthodox medicine, government, media, quackwatch etc. quotes when the subject of vitamin C and cancer appears? Obviously, they cite Mayo Clinic studies, not the three studies (conducted in Scotland, Canada and Japan) that followed the same treatment and evaluation protocols.
Here is the key point How can you deny a study unless they follow the same protocols and come to a different conclusion? They can not. If you do not exactly follow the original protocol and if you come to a different conclusion, you have not tried anything. If you want to refute something you must follow the exact protocols. Moertel and the company did not, but claimed to have denied Cameron and Pauling.
With three fake studies to tell the world, The Cancer Industry stated that Moertel and the company followed the Right , And because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Moertel protocols , so Pauling and Cameron’s studies were false. If your brain exploded, I understand perfectly.
Do you understand what they did? It was agreed that a person should follow the same protocol in order to refute something. However, it appeared that the Moertel protocol was superior and that because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Mortel protocol , the results of the Cameron and Pauling study were false. I have an entire chapter in my other free eBook online at Pauling / Cameron / Moertel Studios.
My point is that for all bad substances (eg tobacco) there are two types of studies: studies that make the substance look bad (because it is bad) and studies that make the substance look good or at least not Harmful because they are funded by Big Tobacco or Big Pharma). Similarly, for all good substances (for example, vitamin C) there are two types of studies, those that make the substance look good (because it is good) and those that make it look bad, or worthless ( Because they are funded by Big Pharma). This gives the FDA a blank check to approve or disapprove any substance , whether good or bad.
In addition, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. a large club to legally stop any study (which is not entirely under the control of orthodox medicine) that compares alternative treatments to chemotherapy. This means that item # 2 above is impossible to achieve any alternative treatment, meaning that without item # 2, collecting statistics from item # 3 is impossible to accumulate. The graphics mentioned above can never be done.
If someone thinks for a minute that the FDA is corrupt and Congress is a group of saints, they need to have control of reality. Congress created the FDA, Congress allows them to do what they want, and Congress only criticizes the FDA when the media can not suppress what they have done. In other words, Congress only criticizes the FDA when its re-election could be threatened. And that never happens.
But let’s not forget the scientists Who bow to Big Pharma. So you do not think that scientists It can not be corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, as it was by the tobacco industry, consider this quote:
In June 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors stated that they were abandoning their policy by stipulating that the authors of medical review articles could not have financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs were being tested.
The reason? The magazine could no longer find enough independent experts. Pharmaceutical company gifts and consulting fees They are so penetrating that in any given field, you can not find an expert who has not been paid in any way by the industry. So the magazine was set to a new standard: Your reviewers may have received no more than $ 10,000 [per year] from the companies whose work they judge. Is not it comforting?
This announcement of the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been corrupted by conflicts of interests and prejudices, calling into question almost all the scientific claims made in the biomedical field. P
The standard announced in June was for reviewers only. The actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often purchased and paid for by private pharmaceutical companies with a share in scientific results. While the NEJM and some other magazines reveal these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed were often collected and analyzed by the manufacturer of the drug involved in the test.
But even this quote does not specify how the pharmaceutical industry has achieved the total suppression of the truth.
Think for a moment about the difference between how the tobacco industry suppressed the truth between 1954 and the 1990’s, and how the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing the truth today. Try to isolate and determine the huge difference between your tactics before continuing to read.
With the tobacco industry, tobacco-funded studies found no link between tobacco and lung cancer, and other diseases. On the other hand, studies of the non-tobacco industry yes consistently found a link between tobacco and lung cancer, etc.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry’s studies on aspartame found no health problems with aspartame. On the other hand, studies of the non-pharmaceutical industry yes found health problems with aspartame.
As you may suspect, pharmaceutical industry studies on orthodox treatments find no problem with orthodox cancer treatments (how can you find a problem comparing your old toxic sludge with your treatment? New Toxic Sludge). However and here is the difference, because of the FDA, NCI and AMA there are no scientific studies on alternative cancer treatments. They are not legal. They are not allowed.
Do you see the difference? Anyone who wants to find the truth about alternative cancer treatments is not allowed to study. The pharmaceutical industry has taken a giant leap beyond what the tobacco industry could do. There are no true studies to dilute.
For example, during the 42 years the tobacco industry financed its hundreds of fake scientific studies, did it assume that a government agency had the authority to block any study that was not funded by the tobacco industry? That is exactly the level of suppression of the truth that the pharmaceutical industry has achieved – have been able to block all cancer studies that are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry or our corrupt government. It is not that these studies are not being done, is that the government does not give them any official status (more on this will be discussed below).
You have now heard some of the good things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table # 3) and some of the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table # 4). Let’s look at why, throughout your life, you have only heard the elements in the truth table # 1 and the truth table # 2.