We’ve Been Calling Big Pharma Out All Along


This isn’t news to people that have been following me or the Health Ranger (Mike Adams), but it is to people that actually believe the propaganda that passes for truth in the mainstream media. We’ve been talking about this for over 10 years, but the opioid epidemic is getting some to wake up and see the truth.

Most don’t want to believe that Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment collude to prioritize profits over people. It’s a sordid thing, but it is true. If you really read and absorb the information in the articles on this site, you will understand that this is the truth. Regardless of whether or not you believe it’s their intent, or whether it’s just the way business works, the result is the same. You just can’t trust Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment to put your health above their profit motive. There are a lot of people that have paid with their lives for believing that fairy tale. Don’t be one of them…

Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

(Natural News) The drug industry is a racket, a scheme, a chemical con game that has mastered the dark art of turning human beings into profit centers while pretending to be searching for “cures.”

But if you’ve been reading Natural News for long, you already knew all this. I’ve been sounding the alarm on Big Pharma drug cartels for over 15 years, calling for criminal prosecutions of the pharmaceutical giants under existing racketeering (RICO) laws. The pharmaceutical drug industry is, of course, a massive criminal cartel that’s steeped in bribery, fraud, predatory tactics and the systematic abuse of human lives for profit.

Now, thanks to the opioid epidemic, much of the world is finally starting to awaken to what I saw over a decade ago. The opioid epidemic has brought the criminality, corruption and pure evil of the pharmaceutical industry to light. People are downright horrified at what they’re suddenly coming to realize: The pharmaceutical industry exists solely to profit from human suffering in the name of “medicine.” And it doesn’t matter how many lives they destroy in the process as long as their profits keep rolling in.

Health Ranger warnings about Big Pharma starting to become universally recognized

Two days ago, an astonishing article that highlights many of the same points I’ve made over the last fifteen years was posted by Lynn Parramore of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. This article, entitled “Worse Than Big Tobacco”: How Big Pharma Fuels the Opioid Epidemic, might as well be called, “Everything the Health Ranger warned you about Big Pharma has just come true.”

Indeed, in this excellent piece of genuine journalism, Parramore repeats many of the very same points I mentioned a decade ago on Natural News, back when anyone daring to suggest that drug companies weren’t God’s gift to humankind was smeared, defamed and ridiculed. Now, it seems, the tide is turning against Big Pharma, and it’s the opioid epidemic that’s exposing the real monster lurking underneath all the fraudulent science, FDA corruption and industry influence over the (fake news) mainstream media. As I’ve written many times before, Big Pharma is an economic wrecking crew, and if we don’t expose and dismantle its criminal racket, it will economically destroy this nation while poisoning millions of its citizens to death.

Now, I invite you to read almost everything I’ve been saying about Big Pharma over the last ten years, but in the words of Lynn Parramore, the Senior Research Analyst for the Institute for New Economic Thinking. I’m reprinting part of her article here, and I encourage you to read her full article at this link. In it, you will hear repeated echoes of Natural News and the warnings we’ve been sounding for a decade and a half.

As a side note, Lynn is a progressive writer who also writes for the Huffington Post, Alternet and other similar outlets that have desperately mocked Natural News over the years for daring to suggest exactly what Lynn Parramore is saying today. Parramore was just getting her doctorate degree from New York University when I was trailblazing awareness about Big Pharma’s criminal behavior back in 2007. What’s especially interesting in all this is how Lynn and I both arrive at nearly the identical conclusion about Big Pharma’s serial abuse, even though we arrive at that conclusion from different worldviews.

It’s also worth noting that the Republican establishment is almost universally in favor of continuing the current Big Pharma monopolies, which is one more reason why every concerned American should overthrow the status quo (at the ballot box, of course) and demand an entirely new approach to medicine that ends corporate monopolies and recognizes the value of decentralized, non-monopolized natural medicine. As I’ve said many times, President Trump can “reform” the health care system all he wants, but until we stop handing over one-fourth of our economy to an industry that primarily invents new ways to drug everybody for profit, we will never be able to make health care truly affordable (or effective, for that matter).

Here’s part of the article from Lynn Parramore. It’s worth a serious read, and if you like it, you should check out a far more exhaustive exploration of all this by reading Natural News on a regular basis.

Once again, an out-of-control industry is threatening public health on a mammoth scale

Over a 40-year career, Philadelphia attorney Daniel Berger has obtained millions in settlements for investors and consumers hurt by a rogues’ gallery of corporate wrongdoers, from Exxon to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. But when it comes to what America’s prescription drug makers have done to drive one of the ghastliest addiction crises in the country’s history, he confesses amazement.

“I used to think that there was nothing more reprehensible than what the tobacco industry did in suppressing what it knew about the adverse effects of an addictive and dangerous product,” says Berger. “But I was wrong. The drug makers are worse than Big Tobacco.”

The U.S. prescription drug industry has opened a new frontier in public havoc, manipulating markets and deceptively marketing opioid drugs that are known to addict and even kill. It’s a national emergency that claims 90 lives per day. Berger lays much of the blame at the feet of companies that have played every dirty trick imaginable to convince doctors to overprescribe medication that can transform fresh-faced teens and mild-mannered adults into zombified junkies.

So how have they gotten away with it?

A Market for Lies

The prescription drug industry is a strange beast, born of perverse thinking about markets and economics, explains Berger. In a normal market, you shop around to find the best price and quality on something you want or need—a toaster, a new car. Businesses then compete to supply what you’re looking for. You’ve got choices: If the price is too high, you refuse to buy, or you wait until the market offers something better. It’s the supposed beauty of supply and demand.

But the prescription drug “market” operates nothing like that. Drug makers game the patent and regulatory systems to create monopolies over every single one of their products. Berger explains that when drug makers get patent approval for brand-name pharmaceuticals, the patents create market exclusivity for those products—protecting them from competition from both generics and brand-name drugs that treat the same condition. The manufacturers can now exploit their monopoly positions, created by the patents, by marketing their drugs for conditions for which they never got regulatory approval. This dramatically increases sales. They can also charge very high prices because if you’re in pain or dying, you’ll pay virtually anything.

Using all these tricks, opioid manufacturers have been able to exploit the public and have created a whole new generation of desperate addicts. They monopolize their products and then, as Berger puts it, “market the hell out of them for unapproved and dangerous uses.”

Opioids are a drug class that includes opium derivatives like heroin (introduced by German drug maker Bayer in 1898), synthetics like fentanyl, and prescription painkillers like oxycodone (brand name: OxyContin). A number of factors are aggravating the addiction crisis: There has been a movement in medicine to treat pain more aggressively, while at the same time wide-ranging economic distress has generated a desire to escape a dismal reality. But a key driving force is doctors—who have been wooed by pharmaceutical marketing reps—overprescribing for chronic pain.

“For the first time since the years after heroin was invented,” writes investigative journalist Sam Quinones in Dreamland: The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic, “the root of the scourge was not some street gang or drug mafia but doctors and drug companies.”

Doctors were once reluctant to write prescriptions for opioids. The U.S. drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), would only approve such drugs for severe cases like cancer patients in chronic agony or certain people in short-term pain after, say, an operation. But representatives of Connecticut-based drug maker Purdue, which released OxyContin in 1996, along with other companies, began to flood doctors’ offices with reports asserting that using the drug for off-label purposes was harmless. Often the targets were primary care physicians with little training in addiction. Have a chronic arthritis case? Give your patient OxyContin. Tell folks take it every day, for weeks, even years, to treat just about any kind of chronic pain. The upshot was addiction —typically not because people were getting high for fun, but because they used a legal drug in precisely the way the doctor ordered.

Purdue and others whisked doctors to stylish retreats to push them to prescribe drugs for uses not approved by U.S. regulators—a marketing strategy banned by federal law. They even created fake grassroots organizations to make it seem as though patients were demanding more prescriptions. Pharmaceutical companies like to dodge responsibility for the opioid crisis by blaming dishonest distributors and pointing out that they’re not the ones prescribing or handing out drugs to patients. True enough: They don’t need to, because they’ve done their work hooking you long before the drug is in your hands.

“The marketing is not only fraudulent; it’s incredibly elaborate,” says Berger. “Fake scientific studies promote the lie that opioids are better than other medications for pain. They’ve gone to just about any length. Bribery, you name it. It’s outrageous.”

OxyContin is so addictive that it can create physical dependency in a matter of weeks. As drug makers and doctors who began to dole out pills by the handful in pain clinics learned, addicts do not behave like ordinary consumers. They don’t “choose” to buy or to wait until next week. They need their drug right away and will do anything to get it because if they don’t, they will suffer excruciating symptoms.

A Los Angeles Times report shows that among the lies Purdue spread about OxyContin was that one pill subdued pain for twelve hours. Except that for many patients it wears off much sooner, exposing them to horrific pain and withdrawal. Purdue knew this, but feared lower sales if it admitted the truth. So sales reps advised doctors to just give stronger doses, which increased the addiction risk.

As the money from hooked patients piled up, so did the bodies. So many bodies that earlier this year the Ohio Coroner’s Office found nowhere to store them.

In 2007, Purdue pleaded guilty in federal court in Virginia to misleading doctors and patients about OxyContin’s safety and paid a $600 million fine. But that sum was hardly an annoyance. From 1995 to 2015, Purdue made $35 billion from OxyContin sales alone. The Sacklers, who own the company, are now one of the richest families in America, as revealed by this triumphant Forbes spread. They know that lax regulation keeps the heat off, and that even litigation and criminal prosecutions can do little to stop them. Berger says that until such legal programs are massive in scale and scope, companies will go on with business as usual.

“We have to have injunctive relief [a court order to stop a behavior] that bans the marketing to doctors of opioids completely for unapproved uses, as well as an expansion of the FDA and DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency] to specifically target the drugs,” says Berger. His law firm, Berger & Montague, is involved in the effort to seek relief for the city of Philadelphia, which has seen above-average opioid prescribing and suffered the highest rates of fatal drug overdoses in the state last year.

Even though prescriptions have been slightly reduced across the country since 2012, Philadelphia is finding out what happens to many people hooked on opioids when they can’t get a prescription or find the price too high: They turn to smack. Fatal overdoses of heroin, oxycodone’s close cousin, have been skyrocketing since 2007 across the country.

“Landscapes of Despair”

The opium poppy has been part of human history since at least 3,400 B.C. when it was cultivated in Mesopotamia as the “joy plant.” Derivates, such as laudanum and morphine, offered more convenient and, people wrongly believed, safer ways to get the plant’s benefits. Bayer originally touted heroin as a non-addictive substitute for morphine, even for children, until it was outlawed in the U.S. in 1925. Rendering it illegal did not stop it from destroying the lives of many of America’s most celebrated artists, from Billie Holiday to Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Drug overdoses now kill more people than gun homicides and car crashes combined. In 2015, nearly two-thirds of all overdoses had one thing in common: opioids. As more and more names appear in the obituaries linked to opioid overdoses, most recently Buddhist teacher Michael Stone, Americans begin to wonder who is next.

Syracuse University’s Shannon Monnat, a sociologist focused on rural issues and an INET grantee, has been studying the epidemic and how it impacts various populations. Her research reveals that the rise in drug-induced deaths has been especially sharp among middle-aged people (45-55), with prescription opioid overdoses increasingly impacting both middle-aged and older populations. Heroin, whose sedating and euphoric effects are very similar to prescription opioids, looks to be the culprit in more young adult overdoses.

Monnat considers how the opioid crisis points to bigger societal problems impacting the economy, educational institutions, the health care system, political systems, and communities. Her work centers on investigating the characteristics of what she calls “landscapes of despair”—places where people are hurting economically and socially, like Appalachia, the Industrial Midwest, and parts of New England. She points out that persistent disadvantage and long-term poverty are clearly connected to the opioid crisis, noting that many of the areas most impacted were once robust centers of manufacturing before jobs moved to other countries.

Opioid addiction seems to thrive in downwardly mobile small cities in rural areas—but not all of them. “What’s fascinating is that some of these areas have very high mortality rates from drug overdose, like Appalachia,” say Monnat. “But others, like the Southern “Black Belt” [a region which stretches across Alabama and Mississippi], have not seen such rises.”

Originally named for its rich, dark, soil—which attracted cotton planters in the 19th century—the Black Belt has a large African American population. The area has a history of unremitting poverty, low incomes, high unemployment, and high mortality. Yet despite many hardships, which are linked the legacy of slavery, Monnat says that the region is also distinct for its “very tight-knit communities, strong kinship networks, and other networks where people can find emotional support.” It seems that when people have somewhere to turn in hard times, they may build up immunity to an epidemic like the opioid scourge.

Ironically, another factor that may have protected these communities is prejudice, as Quinones discusses in Dreamland. The low-profile heroin dealers originating from a small municipality on Mexico’s west coast who are associated with the current opioid scourge have tended to fear black Americans, preferring to target white communities. They also avoid big cities where large cartels are already established. So small, predominately white towns are their sweet spot.

Appalachia is known for kinship networks, but it also has a legacy of isolation and an outlaw tradition associated with the history of moonshining and bootlegging which can feed into today’s underground selling and distribution of opioid drugs. In this region, much of the struggling white working class has experienced economic distress with little hope of relief from America’s political system. Democrats often openly disdain “rednecks” and “hillbillies” while concentrating on identity politics rather than economic hardship. Republicans promote policies of free trade and deregulation that cast the region further into destitution.

Monnat has found that counties with large numbers of people employed in physical labor—especially occupations with higher rates of disability—have higher rates of drug fatalities. These are places where coal miners work in backbreaking positions and military veterans suffer the pain of injuries. She observes that drug companies have besieged these areas with aggressive marketing of pain pills. “In Appalachia, you’d see mining companies with physicians on staff prescribing opioids to keep people in pain working,” she says. “That was happening before OxyContin, but companies like Purdue targeted these communities to push OxyContin as a safer alternative to other pain medications.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) report that the opioid epidemic, which started as a regional crisis, is now a national crisis. It casts a pall over far more than individual lives; it is now decimating communities and even helping to reshape the American political landscape. Monnat finds a relationship between the landscapes of despair and the 2016 presidential election. Voting patterns show that areas in which President Trump did better than expected, like Pennsylvania and Ohio, were also places where opioid overdoses and deaths from alcohol and suicide occurred at high rates over the past decade.

During his campaign, Trump expressed concern for people in regions like Appalachia and flung stinging barbs at the politicians who had failed them. These voters supported him in high numbers, and yet sadly, his policies will likely give more power to the pharmaceutical companies that have turned their suffering into stock windfalls.

Continue reading the full article at Ineteconomics.org. Also follow more news on opioids at Opioids.news.

Will Orthodox Medicine Ever Find a Cancer Cure?


Is a Cancer Cure Possible?

After over 70 years of ever-increasing spending on cancer research, this is a valid question. At what point do we finally throw up our hands and cry, “Uncle!” Or better yet, why aren’t people demanding better cancer treatments? Why do we just accept treatments that are worse than the cancer itself?

After many billions of dollars spent and many millions of man-hours of research and academic work, we appear to be no closer to any cure for most major cancers than we were in 1940.  If you strip away all of the marketing and medical propaganda, a cancer diagnosis still elicits a lot of fear.

And that’s because cancer is still a deadly disease. Contrary to the marketing hype, chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and immunology are not cures for cancer. And each treatment method has gruesome side effects as well as bankruptcy-causing expenses.

The question becomes, “If chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and immunology are not cures for cancer, then why are we using them, and why haven’t we found anything better?”

Follow the Money

This is really the 500 pound gorilla in the living room that nobody wants to talk about.

Even if we concede that there is no conspiracy to hide real cures for cancer, you have to admit that there is a huge, extremely lucrative cancer industry out there upon which a lot of people depend on for their livelihoods. I would even submit that if a cheap, highly-effective cure for cancer were to be found and became widely known, it would decimate the multi-billion dollar cancer industry.

We’re talking about many billions of dollars spent on cancer treatment, cancer drugs, cancer research and cancer fundraising. There are a lot of people that work in this industry. Do you really think that they would publicize, or ALLOW to be publicized a cheap, effective, non-toxic, non-profitable cure (or even treatment) for cancer to become widely known? There are a lot of people that would be opposed to that!

Unfortunately, money and moneyed interests virtually all seek to protect their profits. Even R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco manufacturers went out of their way to claim that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer. So do you expect oncology drug giants and those who depend on their handouts, campaign contributions, or their ad expenditures to kill the cancer ‘golden goose’? Bite the hand that pays their expensive car notes, mortgages, etc.? If you do, I have a bridge in San Francisco to sell you at a very nice price…

There have been many cheap, effective cancer treatments, but…

…it doesn’t serve the interests of the elite for them to become well-known.

Let’s think about some things here. Tesla had produced a method whereby he could either sell people their own electricity-producing units, and also a method whereby he could wirelessly beam electricity to every house that required it.

When he was seeking funding from J.P. Morgan, the first question Morgan asked him was,”Where do you hook up the meter?”  When Tesla told him that there was no need for a meter, his funding was over.  All that to say that money and profits was a major consideration in who got the funding. They funded Edison instead, and you see how profitable that is for the electric industry.

Think of that as just a metaphor for how the Cancer Industry and the Medical Establishment operate. This is not to say that there aren’t a lot of honest, well-meaning people in health care that want to see cures for cancer and other chronic diseases. But we must understand that they are often powerless to go against the regulatory agencies and those who define the standards for health care procedures.

In fact, the very method that is used to create acceptable evidence for any cancer treatment is very expensive-into the hundreds of millions of dollars per clinical trial. This is a created ‘barrier to entry’ so that small players in health care cannot afford to run these trials. It also mandates that any company that invests in a treatment must be able to make at least enough profit to cover this expense. Any substance that cannot be patented will not be profitable enough to cover these expenses.

And this is not considering all of the intrigue that surrounds scientific investigations of substances and methods that threaten Big Pharma profits.  Have you ever wondered why they will not ever test any alternative cancer treatment directly against chemotherapy, radiation or immunology? It’s because the difference would be so obvious that it would destroy the conventional cancer treatment paradigm. They will pay lip service to it being unethical to let people die when a better treatment is available, but that’s just an excuse to protect inferior, but more profitable, treatments from the truth that they are not the best.

What hope do we have of curing cancer?

There is always hope.  But it will require people to do their own thinking. Unfortunately, most people tend to prefer the ‘path of least resistance’ when it comes to life.  It’s easier to let the physician (or any other certified ‘expert’) do your thinking for you. But we have to first verify that they truly have our  best interests in mind when they serve us.

I’ve seen studies and polls that tell us that the majority of physicians and nurses wouldn’t undergo chemotherapy or radiation for their cancer.  So regardless of whether they know better or not, they’re giving us stuff they wouldn’t want for themselves or their families. I think that actions speak louder than words.

But we must not kid ourselves. Oncologists and other medical professionals will continue to give us profitable, yet inferior treatments for diseases if we keep accepting them! They have proven that they can not, or will not give us cheap, effective treatments for cancer and most other chronic diseases. They will continue to prescribe these poisons masquerading as medicines if we keep taking them and paying for them!

They will not stop. The people in control will continue to mandate that we take toxic chemotherapy substances and cancer-causing, DNA-damaging radiation. But you don’t have to take that crap if you don’t want to. It’s your choice. Some people do get benefits from it. But I strongly suspect that most people that take chemo and radiation end up either dead or with a re-occurrence of cancer down the line. And that’s not factoring in all of the gruesome side effects that greatly diminish the quality of life.

As I’ve discussed before, what good is a cure for cancer if you’re debilitated after it, are constantly sick from the treatments, get sick again from the same, or other serious diseases, and to top it off, you’re now bankrupted from these highly expensive treatments? There has to be a better way, even if the self-proclaimed experts say there isn’t.  If they are experts, then why don’t they have any cures? And why do they charge us super-high fees as if what they’re peddling ARE cures? If they are experts, they why don’t they understand what causes cancer? It’s very obvious that they’ve spend more than enough time and money searching for these answers. What gives?  Think about it…


Prolonged Antibiotic Use Tied to Precancerous Colon Growths


This is not good news. It’s high time that the use of antibiotics was scaled down.

They’re already leading to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant strains of numerous pathogenic bacteria.

Unfortunately, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics is also seems to be leading to an increase of precancerous colon growths.

The part that the Medical Establishment is leaving out is that since antibiotics are produced by fungus/mold, they also lead to the growth of more fungus & mold inside the body. This is because they throw off the body’s balance of fungi to bacteria.  We all have both inside our guts, but just because you kill off bacteria doesn’t mean that it won’t have other effects upon the body.

If you want more information on that, I would recommend a book written by Jane Lim called The Silent War Within: Biochemistry & Legal Research on Parasitic Fungi (The Most Common, The Most Deadly) (Volume 1). It’s one of the most detailed works on the effect of fungi and mold on human disease conditions. It’s an amazing book that also covers more about Toxic Building Syndrome that is caused by mold infestations and the reason why most insurance companies and real estate people don’t want this issue to become widely known.

Also, the Medical Establishment appears to refuse to acknowledge the important role that fungi and mold play in human disease. It’s unfortunate, but this is just the way it is. You owe it to yourself to get up to speed on this topic.

Learn how to beat cancer after your doctor gives up on you…

TUESDAY, April 4, 2017 — Taking antibiotics for an extended period in early to middle adulthood might increase your risk for precancerous growths in your colon, a large study suggests.

Women who took antibiotics for two weeks or more in their 20s through their 50s were more likely to have colon lesions in their 60s than women who didn’t take the drugs for an extended period, researchers found.

If not removed, these lesions — called polyps or adenomas — can lead to colon cancer.

“This suggests that alterations in the naturally occurring bacteria that live in one’s intestines caused by antibiotics might predispose individuals to colorectal cancer,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Chan.

But, although the risk for colon cancer was raised, it wasn’t to a level “where it should worry individuals who need to take antibiotics for clear medical reasons,” said Chan, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

He also cautioned that this study cannot prove that long-term antibiotic use was the cause of the polyps, only that the two seem to be associated.

And, though the study was limited to women, the link likely also holds true for men, Chan said.

“More research needs to be done to understand the interaction between alterations in one’s gut bacteria and future risk of colorectal cancer,” he said.

Antibiotics disrupt the diversity and number of bacteria in the gut, or “microbiome.” They also reduce resistance to toxic bacteria. All of this might play a role in the development of precancerous growths, Chan said.

In addition, bacteria that require antibiotics may cause inflammation, which is a known risk for colon cancer, he added.

For the report, Chan and his colleagues collected data on more than 16,600 women 60 and older who took part in the Nurses Health Study.

The women provided a history of antibiotic use between ages 20 and 59. They also had had at least one colonoscopy between 2004 and 2010. Nearly 1,200 precancerous polyps in the colon were found during that time.

Use of antibiotics within the previous four years wasn’t associated with a heightened risk of polyps, but long-term use in the past was, Chan said.

For example, two months of antibiotic use in her 20s or 30s upped a woman’s odds for polyps 36 percent compared to those who didn’t the drugs for a prolonged period. The risk rose further when the extended medication use occurred in one’s 40s or 50s, researchers found.

Shorter-term use wasn’t without risk, either. Taking antibiotics for more than 15 days between ages 20 and 59 also increased the chances of finding polyps, the study found.

Medical News and Science are Heavily Politicized


This is a sore spot with me and others who have not been totally hypnotized by mainstream media and others who use their powers of discernment and analysis to allow them to find the truth.

In a perfect world, we could simply believe the authorities and others who have positions of influence and trust to tell the truth about things. But we do not, and have never lived in a utopia.

Although many people who claim a love and respect for science won’t admit it, there are huge unidentified biases in what is reported on in the media, and even in scientific journals.  And one of the biggest biases is that Big Pharma and the rest of the Medical-Industrial Complex are composed of corporations and a coterie of other ‘hangers-on’ that profit from the status quo.

You have television stations, radio stations and others who accept many millions and billions of dollars for Big Pharma advertisements.  You have most of the major journals that also accept huge sums of money for those same advertisements. The entire system is predicated on Big Pharma companies earning these huge profits. If those profits were to be destroyed by cheap, effective treatments for diseases, those profits and the people and institutions that depend on them for their wealth and power would be destroyed.

And the people that survive and thrive because of these profits will do anything to protect them. If you study the history that they won’t talk about in the mainstream media, you can observe what happens to those intrepid scientists, physicians and others who threaten Big Pharma profits. They get summarily ridiculed, insulted, threatened, de-licensed, fired, lose their tenure, lose their research positions and funding, and in some extreme cases, even get murdered.

Unfortunately, for many science aficionados, none of these occurrences and facts are ever talked about in any scientific journals. And these facts are often ascribed to ‘conspiracy theorists.’ But is it a theory, or is it just facts that aren’t ever truly confronted by mainstream media and the leaders of our institutions because they are too much truth that would, once again, threaten Medical-Industrial Complex profits?

Do you really expect those who are benefiting from the misery, bankruptcy and painful deaths of many millions of people to just come out and admit as much?  Do you expect them to confess to crimes and indecencies that would land them in jail and bankrupt them? Subject them to public scorn and excoriation?  To expect as much would be the epitome of naivety.

Unfortunately, because so many have a worship of science and the ‘scientific method,’ they become susceptible to such intrigue. They clamor for evidence and where ever the research guides us. But they find themselves unable to understand that the direction of research and the theories that are embraced are all selected by those in the Medical-Industrial Complex that lead to expensive treatments for diseases instead of cheap, effective cures for them.

In order to understand a situation, you often have to transcend the box in which is exists so that you can escape it. If you play a rigged game in a rigged system, don’t expect to ever be able to understand or escape it. Right now, the paradigm of Medicine and science has been captured by those who profit from the status quo. If it weren’t captured by them for other motives, we would already have cures for most major diseases like cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases, etc. But that wouldn’t lead to the most profitable situation for Big Pharma and its cronies.

Take cancer, for instance. The one who understands a subject takes the complex and makes it simple. The one who either doesn’t understand or is confounding the subject to profit from it, takes the simple and makes it complex.

Examine the history of those who came before Galileo and his theory of the Sun being the center of the galaxy.. They were all trying to justify the false notion that the Earth was the center of the galaxy. Each expert that tried to perform the calculations had to come up with more and more complex explanations and theories to ‘prove’ that the Earth was the center of the galaxy. This was the pre-selected conclusion that the Catholic church was paying all the experts to prove. And there was a consensus of all the astronomy experts of the time that the Earth was the center of the universe (sound familiar?).

But then along came Galileo who dared to announce his findings that the Earth wasn’t the center of the galaxy. But because the PTB were so wedded to the idea that the Earth was the center, he was punished for his heresy.  His calculations were simple and direct, relative to the ever-increasing complexities of the calculations and theories of those who sought to prove a falsehood, only because they were fawning to the power of the Catholic church.

So it’s good to require evidence and good scientific studies to support your beliefs about things. But don’t get lured into believing in science as if it were a religion instead of a system. And systems can always be gamed by those who have a higher perspective of it. It’s easy to think that a ‘consensus of experts’ will always lead to truth, but it just doesn’t work that way in the real world. Remember that doctors used to advertise and endorse cigarettes in the early & mid 1900’s. We’re just not as different from people from eras past as we would like to think.

Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

How medical ‘news’ became manipulated, industry-funded science throughout the 20th century

(Natural News) When it comes to accurately and honestly reporting the news, there is a definitive limit to what reporters are allowed to cover, especially when they are fully immersed in the culture of what has come to be known as the “mainstream media.” There are certain topics that you just do not touch in this realm — unless, of course, you want to be fired or relegated to “fringe” status, which many of the best reporters over the years have sadly come to realize firsthand.

The hijacking of news by special interests — and especially medical news — is hardly new. But the great disservice that it has done to the people of not only the United States but everywhere else that censorship has prevailed, is largely underestimated. For probably the last 100 years, medicine and the advancements surrounding it have served a sinister agenda that, far from helping people achieve true health, has harmed and killed millions upon millions of people through the printing of “fake science” medical news.

When powerful interests began to invade medical schools and change their curricula right around the turn of the 20th century is when things really went south. Doctors began to treat symptoms rather than copiously search for the root causes of illness in order to facilitate their proper healing. Medicine switched from a system that embraced comprehensive immune support to one where pharmaceutical drugs became the answer to everything — much to detriment of public health.

Vaccines and pharmaceuticals have replaced sound nutrition and common sense sanitation and hygiene. The average person knows next to nothing about which foods and herbs might naturally help him or her avoid disease but likely knows that popping an aspirin will relieve that nagging headache. And perhaps the biggest culprit driving this mass ignorance is the media, which has been complicit in hiding the truth from people for many decades.

Worse than terrorism: American medicine kills at least 225,000 people annually

Investigative journalist Jon Rappoport is all-too-familiar with media censorship, having withdrawn from its clutches back in the 1980s when he first observed what was going on. In the arena of vaccines, for instance, Rappoport recognized that stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies is not a reliable indicator that someone is immune from a disease, as antibodies also show up when a person is diagnosed with a disease — how reliable is that?

Or, what about our system of medicine as a whole, which a prominent science paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) back in 2000 revealed is responsible for killing at least 225,000 people living in the U.S. every single year? Mainstream medicine is so harmful, in fact, that statistics now show it to be the third leading cause of death in the U.S., behind heart disease and cancer. (Learn more truths about modern medicine at Medicine.news.)

It is a matter of fact that 2.1 million people in the U.S. are hospitalized every single year due to reactions or side effects from medications that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In total, 36 million Americans suffer adverse reactions to FDA-approved drugs every year, and yet you will rarely hear a peep from the media about this serious epidemic.

Everything from the way certain diseases are diagnosed to the way they are treated is a byproduct of a failed system that, thanks in large part to cowardly journalists who refuse to take a stand, is only continuing to consolidate power and bring more death and destruction to our planet.

Rappoport is smart: he got out while he could and has since made a name for himself as a brave, truth-telling journalist with high rapport in truth-telling circles. But many others outside the fold — some of whom know the truth but refuse to tell it for whatever reason — continue to tow the line, at the expense of untold millions of lives.

Vitamin C-An Amazing Nutrient


Vitamin C is a great supplement to take. Fortunately for us, (or unfortunately for Big Pharma) it helps people with a variety of ailments.

And we’re very happy that it’s relatively cheap, especially when you compare it to pharmaceutical drugs.

But the best part is that there are few side effects to vitamin C. The worst thing that you’ll probably experience is some flatulence and diarrhea if you reach your bowel tolerance level from oral consumption.

I’ve spoken about vitamin C before, but this article also has a lot of references and links to more information about vitamin C. But you should also know that vitamin C is also great for cancer.

This article is written by a PhD professor, for all you science aficionados.

Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

Vitamin C papers hot off the press

Vitamin C is needed by the body to maintain health. It is a “macro-vitamin,” because although not required in large quantities to support energy metabolism, it is required in the diet in amounts much larger than most of the other known “micro-nutrient” vitamins.[1] Typical best daily doses for adults range from 500 to 10,000 mg (milligrams) or more, depending on the stress level and disease condition.[1] It is the most important water-soluble antioxidant in the body, essential for providing antioxidant protection against the onslaught of oxygen, light, and toxins. It is also required to create and maintain collagen, the most common protein in the body, found in the skin, arteries and veins, eyes and brain, and in all organs. [2] However, most people don’t get enough vitamin C even when their diet includes excellent quantities of fresh vegetables and fruits.

Medical research over the last 75 years has shown that supplements of vitamin C can prevent or reverse many progressive diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and chronic eye disease.[1-5] The effect of vitamin C on disease conditions and maintaining health continues to be studied. Each of the research studies cited below increments our knowledge of essential nutrients. The latest research from the past several months provides important new evidence about the vital health benefits of vitamin C:

Vitamin C protects against COPD

Many of us are familiar with TV ads promoting drugs to treat the symptoms of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Smoking is a big risk factor because oxidative toxins in smoke can damage the lungs. But recent research shows that vitamin C can reduce the risk of COPD. In a recent study, heavy smokers who had the highest intake of vitamin C in their diet (more than 140 mg/day) had a 77% reduction in risk for COPD compared to those with low intake.[6] Other nutrients were helpful too, such as retinol (a vitamin A precursor found in egg yolks, butter, and liver) and carotene (another vitamin A precursor found in carrots and other orange and dark green vegetables). The authors suggest that these essential antioxidants improve the immune response and are responsible for antioxidant defenses in the lungs that aid recovery from inhaling toxins in smoke. The mechanism is thought to be in part vitamin C’s ability to restore vascular endothelial growth factor levels and proliferation of alveolar cells in the lungs.[6]

Vitamin C protects against early Alzheimer’s Disease

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), a progressive deterioration of the brain and its cognitive function, is under intensive study because it affects many older people and the cause is currently unknown. Although some of the risk factors are known, such as age, smoking, and genetic predisposition, there is no effective drug therapy to cure or prevent progression of AD.[7] However, in a recent study, it was found that vitamin C, carotenoids, and vitamin B6 in the diet, along with unsaturated fatty acids and to a lesser extent essential minerals, were protective against AD.[8] Vitamin C is known to protect against oxidation from toxins in smoke which are hypothesized to be a potential causative factor in AD.

Vitamin C helps to reduce risk of obesity

Stem cells are a critical component of the body’s recovery from injury and disease. For example, the inflammation that surrounds a physical injury such as a cut on the skin or damage to a joint or bone attracts stem cells and signals them to create new cells of an appropriate type to repair the injury. A recent paper on stem cell differentiation reported that vitamin C (a) helps to transform adult differentiated cells back into stem cells, (b) inhibits stem cells from differentiating into adipocytes (fat cells), and (c) drives differentiation of stem cells into myogenesis (muscle) and osteogenesis (bone).[9] The effect of vitamin C is thought to reprogram the methylation sites in DNA in the stem cells to provide a long-lasting epigenetic signal. The study concludes that vitamin C when taken in sufficient doses (up to 3,000 mg) is safe and may help to attenuate the creation of fat cells and to maintain muscle mass in older people.[9]

Vitamin C helps to prevent stress, depression, and anxiety

Most animals can make their own ascorbate from glucose, but guinea pigs, some birds, and higher primates cannot. They must get ascorbate (vitamin C) from their diet. Mice normally don’t need ascorbate in their diet because their body can make as much as needed to recover from stress and disease; for them it is not a vitamin. A recent study tested the effect of vitamin C in transgenic mice with a mutation that made them unable to make their own vitamin C, similar to humans.[10] The study showed that a lack of vitamin C caused a loss of appetite in males and an anxiety-like state of anorexia in the response to stress in females. The authors suggest that vitamin C is beneficial in maintenance of mental health.[10]

Vitamin C helps to prevent type 2 diabetes in those consuming nitrite in meat

Nitrite (NO2-) is known to be converted by the acid of the stomach into nitrosamine compounds which can cause insulin resistance and cancer. The creation of nitrosamine is also promoted by cooking at high temperatures such as in frying. A recent randomized study reported that those with higher intakes of animal-based nitrite had a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but only in those subjects who had low vitamin C intake.[11] A higher vitamin C intake was associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, even in those with high intake of nitrite. Plant sources of nitrite did not cause an increase in type 2 diabetes risk, nor did animal or plant sources of nitrate (NO3-). The study suggests that nitrites in processed meat are a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.[11]

Macular degeneration is associated with lower intakes of antioxidants

Progressive eye disease such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common cause of blindness. Over many years, the eye is damaged by oxidation from bright light and exposure to toxic substances such as components of cigarette smoke in the blood and other toxic chemicals in the environment. A recent study found that patients with late-stage AMD had lower intakes of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta carotene, folate, and vegetables, and higher intake of zinc than those in a healthy control group.[12] Although the study was observational (i.e. it could not establish causation) and the conclusions tentative, it contradicts the earlier AREDS study [13] that showed a benefit of zinc along with vitamins C and E and beta-carotene. Moral of the story: if you smoke, stop, eat your vegetables, and supplement with vitamins C and E.[4]

Vitamin C helps to prevent heart attacks

Inflammation predicting heart disease is often determined by the level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in a blood test. Although vitamin C is known to strengthen arteries and make them more elastic, helping to prevent high blood pressure and stroke,[14-16] it has not been shown to increase survival in patients with active heart disease and failure. A recent study showed that low vitamin C intake is associated with a high level of hsCRP and inflammation, and shorter survival in patients with heart failure. But even with a high level of hsCRP, an adequate level of vitamin C is associated with longer survival.[17] The study suggests that adequate vitamin C could protect the heart from inflammation and thus help to prevent heart disease.

Vitamin C safety

Vitamin C is safe for most people to take in large doses.[1-3] Its main side effect is that in very high oral doses, it is not further absorbed by the gut and attracts water which tends to cause a laxative effect, gas, and diarrhea. Normally one finds the highest tolerated dose by gradually increasing the dose until the laxative effect occurs, then reducing the dose by 10-30%. This is known as the “bowel tolerance” dose.[1-3]. Although there has been much attention to possible harmful effects such as kidney stones, vitamin C does not tend to form kidney stones in most people with healthy kidneys. Along with adequate hydration, it helps to prevent kidney stones.[18] However in very rare cases of kidney dysfunction, problems have been reported with high doses of vitamin C, and for some people who have a rare mutation in the gene for the enzyme glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), high doses of vitamin C can cause hemolysis (rupture of red blood cells).[1-3] For most people, however, vitamin C does not cause serious side effects when taken up to the bowel tolerance dose. Below this dose, typically 3,000 – 10,000 mg/day for healthy people and 10,000 – 50,000 mg/day when ill with a cold, flu, or when exposed to other toxins or stresses, the laxative effect is not present and vitamin C helps the body to quickly recover from stress.

Adequate vitamin C is essential

These recent research articles on vitamin C reiterate what we have known or suspected for decades. An adequate level of vitamin C is essential for the body, and its absence contributes to a wide variety of conditions and diseases. Although many authors have suggested that it is best to get adequate vitamin C from fruits and vegetables in the diet, we know that supplements of vitamin C can raise the level in the body high enough to prevent heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. We also know that manufactured vitamin C found in high-quality supplements is the same vitamin C nutrient we get from eating fruits and vegetables.[1-3] Because the level of vitamin C goes down when the body is stressed, supplements can supply the extra amount needed to allow the body to recover [19-21]. For many people with ordinary everyday stress, this is 1,500 – 3,000 mg/day, or 500 to 1,000 mg per meal, but it rises when acutely sick or critically ill to 20,000 – 100,000 mg/day, taken in divided oral doses.[1-5]

(Dr. Robert G. Smith is Associate Research Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He is the author of The Vitamin Cure for Eye Disease and also The Vitamin Cure for Arthritis.)


1. Hickey S, Saul AW. Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. Basic Health Pubs, 2008. ISBN-13: 9781591202233.

2. Levy TE. Primal Panacea. Medfox Pubs, 2011. ISBN-13: 978-0983772804.

3. Saul AW (Ed) Orthomolecular Treatment of Chronic Disease: 65 Experts on Therapeutic and Preventive Nutrition. Basic Health Pubs, 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1591203704.

4. Smith RG. The Vitamin Cure for Eye Disease: How to Prevent and Treat Eye Disease Using Nutrition and Vitamin Supplementation. Basic Health Pubs, 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1591202929.

5. Smith RG, Penberthy T. The Vitamin Cure for Arthritis. Basic Health Pubs, 2015. ISBN-13: 978-1591203124.

6. Park HJ, Byun MK, Kim HJ, Kim JY, Kim YI, Yoo KH, Chun EM, Jung JY, Lee SH, Ahn CM. Dietary vitamin C intake protects against COPD: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2012. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016 Oct 31;11:2721-2728.

7. Graham WV, Bonito-Oliva A, Sakmar TP. Update on Alzheimer’s Disease Therapy and Prevention Strategies. Annu Rev Med. 2017 Jan 14;68:413-430. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-042915-103753.

8. Lu Y, An Y, Guo J, Zhang X, Wang H, Rong H, Xiao R. Dietary Intake of Nutrients and Lifestyle Affect the Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Chinese Elderly Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016, 10:229. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00229.

9. Rahman F, Bordignon B, Culerrier R, Peiretti F, Spicuglia S, Djabali M, Landrier JF, Fontes M. Ascorbic acid drives the differentiation of mesoderm-derived embryonic stem cells. Involvement of p38 MAPK/CREB and SVCT2 transporter. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201600506. [Epub ahead of print]

10. Koizumi M, Kondo Y, Isaka A, Ishigami A, Suzuki E. Vitamin C impacts anxiety-like behavior and stress-induced anorexia relative to social environment in SMP30/GNL knockout mice. Nutr Res. 2016 Dec;36(12):1379-1391. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2016.11.006.

11. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Ghasemi A, Carlström M, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Vitamin C intake modify the impact of dietary nitrite on the incidence of type 2 diabetes: A 6-year follow-up in Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. Nitric Oxide. 2017 Jan 30;62:24-31. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2016.11.005.

12. Gopinath B, Liew G, Russell J, Cosatto V, Burlutsky G, Mitchell P. Intake of key micronutrients and food groups in patients with late-stage age-related macular degeneration compared with age-sex-matched controls. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov 29. pii: bjophthalmol-2016-309490. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309490.

13. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1417-36.

14. Shargorodsky M, Debby O, Matas Z, et al. Effect of Long-Term Treatment with Antioxidants (Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Coenzyme Q10 and Selenium) on Arterial Compliance, Humoral Factors and Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Nutr Metab (Lond) (Jul 6, 2010) 7:55. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-7-55.

15. Kurl S, Tuomainen TP, Laukkanen JA, et al. Plasma Vitamin C Modifies the Association between Hypertension and Risk of Stroke. Stroke 33(6) (Jun 2002):1568-1573.

16. Levy, TE. Stop America’s #1 Killer: Reversible Vitamin Deficiency Found to be Origin of All Coronary Heart Disease. Henderson, NV: LivOn Books, 2006.

17. Song EK, Kang SM. Vitamin C Deficiency, High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, and Cardiac Event-Free Survival in Patients With Heart Failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016 Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print]

18. What really causes kidney stones (and why vitamin C does not). OMNS, Feb 11, 2013. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v09n05.shtml

19. Schectman G, Byrd JC, Gruchow HW. The Influence of Smoking on Vitamin Status in Adults. Am J Public Health 79(2) (Feb 1989):158-162.

20. Berger MM. Vitamin C Requirements in Parenteral Nutrition. Gastroenterology 137(5 Suppl) (Nov 2009):S70-578. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.08.012.

21. Nathens AB, et al. Randomized, Prospective Trial of Antioxidant Supplementation in Critically Ill Surgical Patients. Ann Surg 236(6) (Dec 2002):814-822.

FDA quietly bans powerful life-saving intravenous Vitamin C


We hope this isn’t true, but it would appear that they’re attacking another cheap, non-toxic, effective treatment for cancer.

Even if you would argue that IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, you can’t deny that it’s relatively innocuous compared to chemotherapy, radiation or even immunotherapy drugs. Each one of those treatments have a laundry list of side effects, many of them fatal.

People that clamor for the science on this don’t understand that regardless of the scientific basis demonstrating that it is effective, it is not going to be marketed by Big Pharma. And this is because no company is going to spend millions of dollars promoting something that they can’t make any money off of! It just doesn’t work like that. This is not hard to understand, but many alleged science-loving people fail to comprehend this fact. I call it ‘strategic ignorance.’

The science that we’ve seen shows that chemotherapy and radiation are not cures for cancer. So even if IV vitamin C isn’t a cure, it definitely will not cripple, maim or injure cancer patients. And even better, it won’t bankrupt them either. Or is this contrary to Big Pharma profit principles? We need to stop being dupes for Big Pharma’s profit motive. It’s simply not in Big Pharma’s plan to allow cheap cures for diseases because they would destroy the market & sales that they garner from their existing drugs.

Who do you know that would willingly destroy their source of income? Especially if we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars of profits. It’s time to stop being naive and start to wake up to the way that human behavior and motivation really works. Do we really need a double-blind, randomized study to prove this?

Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

It would be naive to think that the FDA endeavors to protect the public’s health as its primary focus. Indeed, that would be a conflict of interest, as it serves its master, the pharmaceutical industry. Has the Food and Drug Administration engineered a shortage of intravenous vitamin C as part of an overall attack on natural and non-toxic approaches to healing that compete with prescription drugs? An analysis by Natural Blaze would suggest that the answer is yes.

Natural Blaze claims that a critical shortage of IV bags in general followed an FDA ban on the mass production of intravenous vitamin C. The FDA limited the availability of IV-C and the pharmaceutical industry halted production of injectable vitamins and minerals, after a 60 minute story about the miraculous recovery of a swine flu patient on life support. Because of the shortage of IV-C, doctors called upon compounding pharmacies to produce it. But the FDA began to limit compounding pharmacies after injectable steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center were contaminated with a fungus that caused a deadly outbreak of meningitis. Here is an example of an entire industry being punished for the dubious practices of one compounding pharmacy.

Try and follow this convoluted story: Doctors began to source NECC for its more expensive product because cheaper generic versions were in short supply. But it was the FDA’s increased inspection of drug factories that disrupted the supply chain in the first place. So the meningitis deaths were in part caused by the onerous actions of the FDA.

Natural Blaze reports, “… without anyone noticing, and by many indirect means of banning production of the bags or shutting down those doing the production of the bags and the injectable vitamins and minerals, access to IV solutions for innumerable treatments for diseases, have gone into critical shortage.”

Vitamin C and the Big C

Could the shortage of IV-C be part of an effort to limit alternative cancer therapies?

DrWhitaker.com states, “… vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that has the power to boost immune function, increase resistance to infection, and protect against a wide range of diseases. But there’s an entirely different and largely unknown role of vitamin C, and that is its ability—when administered in very high doses by intravenous (IV) infusions—to kill cancer cells. … Best of all—and unlike virtually all conventional chemotherapy drugs that destroy cancer cells—it is selectively toxic. No matter how high the concentration, vitamin C does not harm healthy cells.”

Dr. Whitaker continues:

“The only way to get blood levels of vitamin C to the concentrations required to kill cancer cells is to administer it intravenously. … For example, 10 g of IV vitamin C raises blood levels 25 times higher than the same dose taken orally, and this increases up to 70-fold as doses get larger.”

Choose health, choose life

When the human body is challenged by pathogens or needs to heal from injuries or surgery, its requirement for vitamin C increases considerably. If hospitals routinely administered intravenous ascorbic acid, a proven and inexpensive treatment, patient outcomes would improve. When one weighs the risk of infection from deadly superbugs in hospitals today, IV vitamin C as a preventative safeguard makes all the more sense.

To learn how to secure IV-C in advance of a hospital stay for yourself or a family member, check out this very useful advice at DoctorYourself.com. You will learn how to deal with objections from physicians and hospital administrators regarding this “alt-health” remedy. It will require some moxie, but doing so may save a life.

Supporters of Obamacare believe that access to affordable healthcare is the most important consideration. But of even greater concern should be the ability to choose your own treatment modality, such as IV-C. In other words, medical freedom of choice trumps universal access. Many of us involved in the health freedom movement are outraged by the disregard for our natural rights by unelected federal bureaucracies such as the FDA. We hope for a day when a critical mass of aware citizens will hold their elected officials accountable to overturn toxic policies that favor Big Pharma’s obscene profits over our health and well-being. And that day is long overdue.

Selenium-A Natural Cure for Cancer?


This is very exciting news, but the frustrating part is that this isn’t recent news. Worse yet, why isn’t information like this being widely promoted by the mainstream media, nor by the Medical Establishment?  That is a very interesting, and enlightening question for discerning minds.

We hear about all these newfangled, technical miracle medicines and treatments. Whether it’s immunotherapy, or some new drug, treatment or procedure that they have is supposed to revolutionize cancer treatment, we’re always hearing about these types of things from the Medical Establishment. But we don’t hear about how powerful selenium is for preventing cancer.

It would seem more sensible to prevent a person from contracting cancer rather than treating it after that person was diagnosed with it. That would appear to be a more advanced, proactive, effective way to deal with cancer. The best cancer diagnosis is one that is never made. At least that’s what would be cheaper and less painful for the prospective cancer patient.

But we must ask the question: Why is news like this not being slapped all over the news and the Medical Establishment? It wouldn’t be a reach to say that it’s because prevention doesn’t serve Big Pharma interests! Selenium is dirt cheap relative to chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, immunotherapy, or other mainstream treatment modalities.

We must be realistic and understand the concept and truth that Big Pharma companies are not charities! They are not humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Their mission isn’t the betterment of mankind, but the earning of profits for their owners. This isn’t hard to understand, and it is something that everyone needs to know, regardless of how you feel about it.

Things like this let you know that these companies are all about the profits. And this is why you don’t and won’t hear them plastering news or Public Service Announcements about selenium dropping your chances of contracting or dying of cancer by 50%. If it was a pharmaceutical drug that reduced the chances of contracting or dying of cancer by 50%, you’d never hear the end of it from Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment.

Nonetheless, you’re still seeing those Big Pharma commercials for their drugs for cancer and other ailments all over the place. This isn’t rocket science, but it will require you to set aside Big Pharma propaganda so that you can see the truth. But you’ll never see it if you blindly believe the Medical Establishment and their army of scientists that have been conditioned to be beholden to Big Pharma objectives and the Big Pharma paradigm. They’re all cashing in while they have nothing to say about things like selenium. In fact, they (and their minions) often tell you that diet, simple vitamins and minerals cannot cure or treat cancer. I wonder why…

Get More Alternative Cancer information at your fingertips…

Selenium-A Natural Cure for Cancer?

Here’s one of natures most potent natural cancer cures the pharmaceutical industry hopes you never find out about (bad luck for them because you’re about to!)

See why selenium really is one of those “natural cancer treatments” many have been eagerly waiting and hoping for…

Selenium has now been recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America as an anti-cancer nutrient. For that to happen there has to be some strong evidence to prove selenium’s benefit in cancer prevention and treatment.

And there certainly is!

The first conclusive study, a double blind study, was performed by Dr Larry Clark and the results published by the University of Arizona Medical School back in 1996 (these results were then published in the prestigious “Journal of the American Medical Association” J.A.M.A).

What Dr Clark did was take 1312 people and give them nothing more than 200 micrograms of selenium daily, then watch them for ten years.

What he discovered was that selenium alone was able to reduce the overall cancer mortality rate by a stunning 50%. Furthermore, it was able to reduce prostate cancer by 63%, and colorectal cancers by 58%. It was also able to reduce lung cancer by 46%, whether these people were smokers or not. And in a parallel study conducted by the University of California San Diego, they found that selenium was able to reduce breast cancer in women by a staggering 65-95%, depending on the type.

Wow! Amazing Stuff…

The results from this study were truly astounding and even shocked Dr Clark. But what’s even more astounding was that Dr Larry Clark, the man who physically set up the study, was actually against selenium!

Yes that’s right.

He believed selenium was nothing but a total fraud and he set up the study to prove his theory.

Instead it proved just the opposite!

And what’s almost unbelievable about all of this is even after the results, Dr Larry Clark still refused to swallow his pride and not only recognize selenium’s benefits, but also take selenium supplements himself.

Three years after the study, Dr Larry Clark died of prostate cancer.

Now some people might look at this and say it was a terrible tragedy.

I look at it and say it was pure insanity!

Enough said I think?

More Marvelous Benefits of Selenium for Cancer Sufferers…

So what other benefits can this remarkable mineral offer us in regards to treating and curing cancer?

Well, selenium also works very closely with vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene to block the chemical reactions in the body that create dangerous free radicals (free radicals damage our DNA and cause degenerative diseases, including cancer).

In addition, selenium helps to stop these damaged DNA molecules from actually reproducing. So in other words, it prevents tumors from even developing!

Dr James Howenstine, in his book, A Physicians Guide to Natural Health Products That Work, says… (In regards to selenium)

“It contributes towards the death of cancerous and pre-cancer cells. Their death appears to occur before they replicate, thus helping stop cancer before it gets started.”

And as a further benefit, selenium has also been shown to aid in the slowing – and even reversal – of cancer progression in patients who already have the disease.

Westerners often don’t get enough selenium, because it’s now been processed out of the foods normally eaten and western soils are grossly deficient.

This is one of the reasons why American men are five times more likely to die from prostate cancer than Japanese men. The standard Japanese diet contains four times the amount of selenium as the standard American diet.

Good News on Selenium For Breast Cancer Patients…

Ralph W Moss, in his ground-breaking book “Cancer Therapy”, talks about selenium and breast cancer. He states…

The statistics for breast cancer are particularly striking. “The higher the selenium, the lower the breast cancer,” says Professor Ladas. Similar associations have been found with leukemia, as well as cancers of the intestines, rectum, ovary, prostate, lung, pancreas, skin and bladder. In Yugoslavia, scientists studied 33 patients with breast cancer. These women had selenium levels in their bloodstream only half those of healthy volunteers.

And in “Eat and Heal” by the editors of FC&A Medical Publishing, they talk about the powerful effects of selenium when it’s combined with iodine and used as a natural cancer treatment – in particular for breast cancer…

Stephen Cann, associate researcher at the University of British Columbia, gives advice to women who want to fight breast cancer with diet, “Eat different types of seaweed”. These include wakame, kombu, and the more common nori – sea vegetables that might fight cancer because of their iodine and selenium. “We think it is very important for the breast”, Cann says about iodine. This mineral, he believes, may prevent and even shrink breast tumors by combining with certain fatty acids and stopping cancerous cells from multiplying. And without the selenium, iodine doesn’t do its job properly.

The simple fact is all natural cancer treatments must be built on selenium supplementation.

You simply cannot go without this nutrient if you want to cure cancer!

How Reliable Are Cancer Studies?


We all know that nothing is perfect, including science. But it would be very nice if lots of staunch people who worship science as a religion would get off of their proverbial ‘high horses’ and try to be more realistic.

This is a very important question because this is the crux of science. Science is supposed to be based on proof, evidence and a process to remove bias. Many see ‘science’ as the paragon, the absolute apex of information, and of society. This is understandable because we do need to be sure of the things we think and believe are true. It has allowed civilization to progress as far as it has.

But there is a problem when what we call science is different from what science is supposed to be, different from what people assume that it is. And therein lies the conundrum. Is a study really science and constitutes ‘proof’ if the conclusions and the actual study results can’t be replicated? Is ‘science’ really science if it has been corrupted for other objectives? Is ‘science’ really science if the scientists are controlled by profit-seeking corporations, politicians who have been bribed or otherwise incentivized to only search for cancer cures down authorized areas of research, or by regulators and government agencies who are in bed with Big Pharma?

It’s just irritating to hear people always talk about science as if it were the only thing that we can believe in. Evidently, most cancer studies, as demonstrated in this brief study, are not reproducible. This means that this so-called science isn’t as scientific or definite as many think it is. And that’s before we even start talking about hidden agendas for various things like protecting corporate Big Pharma profits, prestige, following the mainstream so you don’t get steamrolled by the Medical Establishment, etc.

Maybe this is a sign that there needs to be an overhaul of science, or a revolution in the way that scientific studies are performed. There has to be a way to improve the reproducibility of scientific experiments. There have to be ways to find and use cheaper, more effective, safer treatments for cancer than what Big Pharma, the Medical Establishment and the government are offering and/or allowing to be marketed to patients and consumers. There’s a difference between finding a cure for cancer no matter where or how it is, and finding a treatment for cancer upon which Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment can make billions of dollars of profit! These objectives are as different as night and day.

Often, many people are extremely biased against ‘unproven’ cancer treatment approaches. They fiercely attack people that have different views on cancer treatment. They ridicule and berate anyone who goes outside of traditional cancer treatments. This article exposes what many alternative cancer treatment practitioners and supporters have implicitly known and felt, but never had the proof to document–until now.

The major takeaway from this study is that people who attack alternative cancer treatments should probably try to be more open minded. It would be different if there were some conventional cancer treatments out there that were over 50-75% effective, but they aren’t. So to summarily dismiss ALL ‘alternative’ cancer treatments because they aren’t mainstream is highly biased because each approach is different and stands on its own merits. But ‘alternative cancer practitioners’ and their supporters usually have more logic in their approaches to cancer treatment than what Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are offering. One common sense strategy is to refrain from the use of medicines and treatments that severely injure patients (like chemotherapy, radiation and often even immunology)!

Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

(emphasis is mine)

In recent years, scientists have been dealing with concerns about a reproducibility crisisthe possibility that many published findings may not actually be true. Psychologists have grappled intensively with this problem, trying to assess its scope and look for solutions. And two reports from pharmaceutical companies have suggested that cancer biologists have to face a similar reckoning.

In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.”

But citing reasons of confidentiality, neither the Bayer nor Amgen teams released the list of papers that they checked, or their methods or results. Ironically, without that information, there was no way of checking if their claims about irreproducibility were themselves reproducible. “The reports were shocking, but also seemed like finger-pointing,” says Tim Errington, a cell biologist at the Center for Open Science (COS).

Elizabeth Iorns had the same thought, and she saw a way to do a better and more transparent job. She had founded a start-up called Science Exchange, which uses a large network of contract labs to provide research support to scientists—and in some cases, check their work. She contacted the COS, and together, they launched the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology—an initiative that used the Science Exchange labs to replicate key results from the 50 most cited papers in cancer biology, published between 2010 and 2012. (The COS recently used the same model for psychology studies to good effect.)

The results from the first five of these replication attempts were published today—and they offer no clean answers. Two of them largely (but not entirely) confirmed the conclusions of the original studies. One failed to do so. And two were inconclusive for technical reasons—the mouse strains or cancer cell lines that were used in the original studies didn’t behave in the same way the second time round. These uncertainties mean that it’s very hard to say whether each replication attempt “worked,” or whether each original study was actually reproducible.

“Everyone wants us to paint the project in black and white,” says Errington. “What percent of these papers replicate? I’ve been asked that so many times, but it’s not an easy question.” To him, the project’s goal isn’t to get a hard percentage, but to understand why two seemingly identical goes at the same experiment might produce different results, and to ultimately make it easier for one group of scientists to check another’s work.

The Reproducibility Project team pre-registered all of their work. That is, for each targeted paper, they wrote up their experimental plans in full, ran them past the original authors, and submitted them to the journal eLife for peer review. Only then did they start the experiments. Once the results were in, they were reviewed a second time, before being published.

The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique. “I’ve done it myself: you reference a previous paper and that one references a paper and that one references a paper, and now you’ve gone years and the methodology doesn’t exist,” admit Errington. “Most people looking at these papers wouldn’t even think of going through these steps. They’d just guess. If you asked 20 different labs to replicate a paper, you’d end up with 10 different methodologies that aren’t really comparable.”

So, in every case, he had to ask the scientists behind the original experiments for the details of their work. Oftentimes, the person who actually did the experiments had left the lab, so an existing team member had to rummage through old notebooks or data files. The project ended up being hugely time-consuming for everyone concerned. “We spent a boatload of time trying to get back to ground zero,” says Errington.

And for what? The results of the first five papers show just how hard it is to interpret a replication attempt in this field. For example, in 2012, Levi Garraway at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that melanoma skin cancers frequently carry mutations in a gene called PREX2. His team then showed that these mutations accelerate the growth of human melanoma cells that were transplanted onto mice. But replicating team couldn’t confirm the latter result; in their experiment, the PREX2 mutations made no difference.

Does that mean that Garraway’s study was wrong? Not quite. Even though the replication team got their melanoma cells and mice from the same source as Garraway’s group, in their hands, the transplanted tumours grew much faster than had been reported. The PREX2 mutations made no difference because all the cells were already zooming along in sixth gear. Small differences in the ways the cells were grown or the mice were housed could have contributed to the differences between these studies, writes Roger Davis, a cell biologist at the University of Masschussetts Medical School, reviewed the PREX2 replication paper.

In another case, Irving Weissman from Stanford Medicine showed that cancer cells carry high levels of a protein called CD47, and antibodies that target this protein can slow the growth of human tumor cells that had been transplanted into mice. In this case, the replication experiment was inconclusive because all the transplanted tumors would spontaneously regress, antibodies or no.

Some might argue that these differences arise because the project relied on contractors, who lack the experience and artisanal skills of the scientists in the original teams. Iorns disagrees. “The teams were all selected for their technical expertise in the experiments being conducted,” she says. “They routinely run these types of experiments all the time.”

Instead, she and Errington argue that the differences stem from the inherent and underappreciated variability of the cells and animals being used in these studies. In psychology, researchers who replicate a study have no choice but to recruit different volunteers, who might differ from the original sample in critical ways. But in theory, cancer biologists should be able to use the exact same lineage of cells or breed of rodents—genetically identical and sourced from the same suppliers—which should behave in the same way. “But some of these models kind of fell apart, and you can’t dismiss that,” says Errington. He hopes that these results will spur other scientists to better explore those variations, and include more quality control steps in their work.

And perhaps the most important result from the project so far, as Daniel Engber wrote in Slate, is that it has been “a hopeless slog.” “If people had deposited raw data and full protocols at the time of publication, we wouldn’t have to go back to the original authors,” says Iorns. That would make it much easier for scientists to truly check each other’s work.

The National Institutes of Health seem to agree. In recently released guidelines, meant to improve the reproducibility of research, they recommend that journals ask for more thorough methods sections and more sharing of data. And in this, the Reproducibility Project have modelled the change they want to see, documenting every step of their project on a wiki.

“We want to applaud replication efforts like this,” says Atul Butte from the University of California, San Francisco, whose study was among the two that were successfully reproduced. “It is important for the public to have trust in scientists, and belief in the veracity of our published findings.” But he suggests that the team chooses their targeted studies in a “more impactful manner”—not by citations, but by those that are most likely to lead to new treatments.

In the meantime, the team still needs to finish its first wave of replications. They initially set out to replicate 50 old papers, but the unexpectedly high costs of doing so have forced them to scale back. “In the end, we think we’ll complete 30,” says Iorns.

The Therapeutic Value of Medical Cannabis vs the Medical Establishment


It boggles the mind to try to figure out the logic of some battles. One such battle is the fight to legalize medical cannabis.

The government and the people who profit from the status quo are very tenacious when it comes to fighting against the legalization of medical cannabis. You would think that cannabis was the deadliest drug on the planet from the way they stubbornly cling to keeping it illegal.  But this isn’t really the case. Alcohol and tobacco kill thousands every year, while there has never been one documented death from cannabis in all the thousands of years people have been smoking or eating it. Think about that…

It doesn’t make sense until you start to understand that cannabis is one of the most useful plants in the world. It would be a threat not only to Big Pharma (as medical marijuana treats lots of diseases and disorders), but also to a number of industries like Big Oil, textiles, the steel industry and others. There are lots of entrenched interests that would lose significant profits if cannabis were to be legalized. More importantly, people would be able to free themselves from dependence on Big Oil and Big Pharma. Many in government don’t want to see that happen, and they definitely don’t want to lose out on the influence that would be lost if those big industries were to shrink.

When you look at how much money entrenched financial interests would lose if cannabis were to be legalized, you will then understand why corporations and their toadies in the government and media fight cannabis legalization tooth and nail. It’s even worse when you consider how much money municipalities, counties and the federal government make off of arresting people for marijuana charges.  It literally goes into the billions of dollars. The War on Drugs really turned out to be a war on The People.

It’s a shame when political and economic agendas taint science and other areas. Marijuana simply isn’t as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. It isn’t 100% innocuous, but it is safer than alcohol, tobacco and most pharmaceutical drugs that are legal. And the DEA’s stubborn refusal to admit the truth about cannabis is strong evidence that they are more concerned with profiteering and protecting corporate interests over protecting the freedom and rights of The People.

The even bigger threat to corporate profits is if cannabis really does treat cancer and a lot of other diseases. Imagine what would happen to scores of medicines if it were to become public knowledge that cannabis was more effective. It would deal corporate profits a big blow. It makes you wonder whether corporate profits or the well being of patients and humanity are the main priority of the DEA and government regulators.

Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States issued a long-awaited decision on the medical benefits of cannabis, and instead of validating what millions of people already know to be true about this healing plant, the DEA chose to keep intact the 1970 designation of cannabis as a schedule I substance, a drug which has, as they claim, no medical benefit.

Furthermore, in an even more egregious affront to justice and common sense, in December of 2016, the DEA made an overnight decision to create a new classification of schedule I drugs for cannabis extracts in order to stop the sale and consumption of CBD oil, a non-psychoactive derivative of cannabis which is known to have many health benefits.

These decisions contradict hundreds of studies, an abundance of medically verified success stories, and countless pieces of anecdotal evidence that cannabis in fact has wide-ranging medical value.

Seen as preposterous to those who support legalization, these rulings appear to be rooted in the status quo tyranny of the drug war and prison industrial complex, two monolithic cash cows which bring immense profit to those who persecute others for recreational and medical use of a plant. Now, however, this DEA’s attitude towards cannabis should come under even more scrutiny and criticism, as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has just released a press release which supports the claims that cannabis has therapeutic benefits.

“… the lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use. We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also.”

In the groundbreaking report released this week entitled The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids:
The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017)
, the NAS issued a comprehensive, researched-backed statement on the validity of medical marijuana, including pros and cons, outlining its clinical effectiveness.

“The report states that there is conclusive evidence that marijuana can be used as a medicine. The report did not find clinical evidence for all conditions marijuana treatment is often associated with, but it recognizes its efficacy for treating many medical conditions such as “chronic pain in adults…chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms.”” [Source]

Speaking on the significance of a statement such as this coming from such an authoriative scientific body as the NAS, Deputy Director of National Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, Michael Collins said:

“This report is vindication for all the many researchers, patients and healthcare providers who have long understood the benefits of medical marijuana. To have such a thorough review of the evidence conclude that there are benefits to medical marijuana should boost the case for federal reform. It also underlines how out of touch the DEA and other marijuana reform opponents are when they claim otherwise.” [Source]

Key findings in the NAS report of particular interest to advocates of legalization include the following:

  • Cannabis has significant therapeutic benefit in the treatment of chronic pain, for spasms caused by multiple-sclerosis, and in the reduction of discomfort for chemotherapy and radiation treatment patients.
  • Smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for cancers often associated with tobacco use.The NAS report does not appear to show favoritism in its findings, duly noting and reporting evidence of both the positive and negative aspects of chronic cannabis usage, which includes the increased risk of mental health issues and psychosocial issues due to overuse. However, the report should be considered a win for those advocating for the legalization of cannabis-based therapeutic medicines and remedies, as well as a rejection of the DEA’s classification of cannabis and cannabis extracts as substances devoid of medical benefit.
  • Contributed by Waking Times of www.wakingtimes.com.Waking Times is an independently owned and operated online magazine that seizes on the transformational power of information to trigger personal revolution and influence humanity’s evolution.

Response to an Oncology Fellow


I came across an article on Forbes that was found on Quora. A person asked a question about alternative cancer treatments and wondered why alternative cancer treatments like vitamin C aren’t being used even though they are said to selectively kill tumor cells without side effects.  The answer was given by a Stanford oncology fellow.

He basically comes out and makes unsubstantiated claims and statements about various alternative cancer treatments. He says that vitamin C simply doesn’t work for cancer treatment by saying that it’s been out since the 1970’s (it’s really been around a lot longer than that). He makes the same blanket statement about all the other alternative cancer treatments, specifically naming Gerson therapy, Laetrile, coral chelation therapy, Japanese mushroom extract, and alkaline water.

Curiously, he mentions that some of his patients had paid ‘out of pocket’ for the above alternative cancer treatments but never addresses what the results of these treatments were. He does mention that all of them are cheaper than conventional cancer treatments. I was curious about the results of those people’s experiences with alternative cancer treatments (even though those would be anecdotal reports and not technically ‘scientific’).

His biggest proof of his claim that no alternative treatments work (he actually said that they don’t even qualify as treatments) is that the organizations paying for the treatments (i.e., the national health services in the various countries) would pounce on these treatments if they were cheaper and effective. He says that all you need to know is that since none of these organizations are even investing in any research on these alternative cancer treatments, that means that it’s because they simply don’t work.

Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…

Of course, you know that this isn’t such an airtight reasoning exercise as he has argued that it is. He has left out a number of elements that impact this situation greatly.  It’s not as simple a situation that he describes it to be.

I had a simple question that I haven’t seen any authorities answer. I want to know why there haven’t been any studies where an alternative cancer treatment, or even no treatment at all, is directly tested against a standard cancer treatment? If chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so much better than these alternative treatments that don’t work, then why won’t anyone test them directly and compare the results.

In fact, why don’t they test chemotherapy drugs against controls that receive no treatment? They claim it’s an ethical issue, but how would you really know if chemotherapy and/or radiation work better than no treatment at all if you never directly test them? One researcher found that chemotherapy was virtually useless for treating cancer.

And why do they have such a huge problem admitting that their approaches to cancer treatment are a dismal failure, especially considering the enormous amounts of money that they’re spending on cancer treatment and cancer research.  Even more perplexing is that they continue to direct the research down the same old lines, using the same failed paradigm. In short, the body is viewed as a battlefield instead of as an integrated working mechanism with interrelated parts.

This is manifested in the thought that bad foods can cause disease, but good foods can’t lead to health. How can one be true and the other be false? This is what I’ve heard from mainstream medical sources, but it doesn’t make sense to me.  If bad food can make you sick, how is it possible for good food to not make you healthy? In fact, for decades, mainstream medicine denied that your choice in foods could even affect your level of health.

A problem with medical research in general is that the experiments are designed to evaluate drugs, as if drugs are the only way to treat diseases.  And because of this bias, there is no real incentive for Big Pharma companies to run expensive trials for natural substances for which they cannot secure patents. No company could finance an $800 million study (the average cost for running a properly recognized study) for a substance that they couldn’t patent and recoup that investment. And unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, no non-Big Pharma companies have the funds to run an $800 million dollar study on any of those natural substances. So it’s basically a “Catch-22” situation.

Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…

There are plenty of promising, non-patentable substances out there that are being studied all the time, but because they can’t be patented, we’ll never see a “double blind randomized” study on them for the above reasons. And although a lot of national health services pay a lot of money for health care, it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that they would want cheap, effective treatments for cancer or any other diseases. In government, they are usually incentivized to want bigger budgets because many departments and administrators are judged on the size of their budget. So to shrink their budgets would be akin to shrinking their fiefdoms, which they don’t want to do.

Lots of scientists and physicians challenge the status quo, but virtually all who do get punished by the mainstream medical establishment. There’s simply too much money that is being made because of the status quo, and anyone that challenges the conceptual framework of it is seen as an enemy of entrenched financial interests. And they ruthlessly defend their profits with an ‘by any means’ strategy. There isn’t a dirty trick in the book that is too sinister for them to employ.

I don’t want to believe that this is the state of affairs in modern medicine. But as I’ve studied, observed and analyzed it (as have others, including scientists and physicians), it’s a fact that there is bias and dogma in modern medicine. We’d like to think that everything they do is proven science, but there’s a lot more to it than that. It’s not such a simple situation. Most people don’t even want to entertain the idea that there is corruption and profiteering in modern medicine, but it’s the sordid truth. Not that this is proof, but I know of doctors who are very disgusted with the way that their options for treating and educating patients are severely curtailed by the medical authorities. They are simply not able to suggest or use treatments that they believe would be better for their patients. In my mind, that is a problem.