I thought that this was a very interesting question. There are a lot of scientific claims being made, both by orthodox cancer researchers and also by people outside of the mainstream sources of cancer research. Before we start talking about who is right and who is wrong, I thought that it would be a great idea to actually describe and define exactly what science is. It appears that many people throw around the term, but a lot of people who use it don’t really realize what it actually means.
In rigorous scientific settings, science is not a thing, but it is actually an approach to research that is designed to minimize bias from investigators’ observations. Even though this is impossible (i.e., there is no way to remove all bias from any investigator’s interpretations of her observations), the investigator can remove as much bias as possible, and then has the duty to identify her sources of bias. The Scientific Method is the standard way that professional, academic researchers structure their projects.
The basic steps of the process are:
- Define the question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Design your hypothesis
- Design and perform your experiments and collect the data
- Analyze the data
- Interpret the data and form conclusions that serve as a new point for another hypothesis
- Report the results
- Retest the hypothesis and/or start the process with the new hypothesis
One thing that has been a huge ‘red flag’ to me is how medical researchers and others in the Medical Establishment fail to identify some obvious biases built into the very structure of the medical and cancer industries. One of the biggest problems is the way in which the regulators, (i.e., the World Health Organization (WHO), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), etc.), the Medical Establishment (i.e., the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society (ACS), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.), and the pharmaceutical corporations all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This is because together, they are all earning many billions and trillions of dollars on the way that the cancer industry is presently structured. In addition, they keep their status and professional monopoly on all cancer treatments. They use their status and political power to suppress, malign and obliterate any alternatives (and anyone who would support them) to the approaches to cancer that may arise.
Some of this is covered by a researcher named Thomas Kuhn in his work entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn found that progress in science was not always the result of rational progression, but that there were other dynamics involved. He also acknowledged that politics, and other social and cultural considerations have a larger impact on science than is readily admitted by the average researcher. In short, scientists are not, nor can they be totally objective about their viewpoint of the world or their scientific ideas.
The bottom line is that it is not as simple to find scientific truth from the so-called ‘experts’. Whether it is intentional or not, the fact is that the truth may not be readily accepted by the scientific orthodoxy if it threatens the paradigms, prestige, status or other considerations that are held by the people who stand to lose benefits if new information renders the status quo obsolete. The ramifications of this imply that it may be the case that scientists, physicians and others impacted by this issue have unacknowledged motivations that make them continue to promote the idea that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are the most efficacious treatments for cancer.