Alternative Cancer Treatment | Cancer Cure | Cancer Remedies

I had an interesting exchange with a person who, evidently, supports the establishment cancer industry position on cancer treatments, cancer cures, cancer research and related issues. I didn’t think that a comment I had made on the Huffington Post in response to another comment would have engendered such a response, but it did. I found it to be very illustrative of many of the things that I have discussed here on smashcancer.com.  But I also thought that by examining what was being said by this person, I could use it as a learning tool. I could see from our ‘dialogue’ that there was no point in trying to have a logical discussion of our points because this person basically had her mind made up.

I can understand how someone could, and would, believe the medical authorities. They’re the authorities! They are the ones that have all of the institutions, the schools, the degrees, the fellowships, the publications, the experts, and associated things. They are the ones that spend and/or expend the resources of time and money to study things like cancer, and they report their findings to us. They are people, and they and their family members suffer & die from cancer, just like everybody else does. So who in their right mind would question their dedication, their work, their never-ending quest to beat cancer? continue reading…

In the course of doing some reading on health, I came across a web site article entitled There’s no such thing as viruses? Now I found the question of whether viruses exist or not to be curious because I’ve studied viruses, have observed them, and actually constructed virus elements into bacteriophage to manipulate plasmid DNA for use in recombinant DNA. So I think it might be a curious question to ask, and may even be considered ridiculous.

What I really found to be curious was how the author continued in his tirade against ‘virus deniers’, and went on to label web sites like Age of Autism and NaturalNews.com as promoters of ‘dangerous quackery’ and that they ‘endanger public health’. The author basically stated that these web sites promote any ‘wacky hypothesis’ that they can find. Instead of providing any basis for his making these determinations, he just resorts to a string of ad hominem attacks on them because they do not agree with the mainstream scientific opinion(s) on these topics. Most of the topics these web sites discuss are not as settled as the writer described above would like us to think. continue reading…

A study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) just found that drug research, even clinical trials that are sponsored by the federal government, is regularly suppressed. Researchers found that less than 50% of all NIH-funded research studies were published within two and a half years of the completion of the study. Incredibly, 33% of these studies were still not published after 4 years. The reason appears to be that the pharmaceutical companies did not like the data.

One example given in the study was the case with Avandia, a drug that was actually approved by the FDA. It was found in 2007 that it caused an increase in heart attacks and cardiovascular disease related deaths. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the drug manufacturer, knew about the increased hazards associated with Avandia before the drug was even approved by FDA! continue reading…

I recently had a discussion with an insurance agent, and as we talked, she revealed to me that she had lost her husband to cancer.  We immediately struck up an in-depth conversation about cancer and all of the alternative cancer treatments that they had tried, but to no avail.  She was very intelligent and appeared to be very knowledgeable about alternative cancer treatments. She was familiar with most of the treatments that I mentioned.

Luckily, it had been a while since she had lost her husband, so she wasn’t overwhelmed with emotions as we talked. But as we talked, I noticed that she thought that shrinking the tumor was the exact same thing as getting rid of the cancer. I told her that the tumor was NOT the same thing as the cancer. In fact, the tumor is merely a symptom of the cancer. continue reading…

Even though doctors using this have only treated three leukemia treatments, they say that the results from this are amazing. Physicians at the University of Pennsylvania report that this treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia, made it disappear in two patients, and that it reduced it by 70% in the third patient.  In fact, in each patient, up to five pounds of tumor tissue was gone in a few weeks, and that it is still gone after a year.

The method that researchers from Abramson Cancer Center removed certain types of white blood cells (leukocytes). They then utilized an engineered, allegedly harmless version of the HIV virus and inserted a number of genes into the white blood cells. These genes were designed to get the cells to target and kill the cancer cells. Researchers grew a large batch of these cells and then injected them back into patients. These cells then began to mercilessly and persistently track down the cancer cells and kill them. Reports are that side effects from this type of treatment have been minor, at best. continue reading…

At Duke University, researchers had developed a genetic test to determine the best way to fight cancer.  They would examine the tumor cell genomes to identify the best drugs for the particular type of cancer the patient has contracted. Unfortunately, these tests were found not to work, and the research that was used to support them was discredited.

This shows that there are some problems with genetic research and its use in cancer detection and treatment. Many of the present genetic research in cancer has not yielded any tangible benefits. There have been many claims that cancer research can be facilitated by the use of genetics, but it just isn’t being realized. continue reading…

There’s a relatively recent article that I came across that deals with the trouble that pharmaceutical companies are having.  They are having major problems due to a number of factors.  The former pharmaceutical researcher (Johnathan Bloom, Ph.D.) that wrote this article speaks about the obvious factors that are negatively affecting the pharmaceutical industry.

He covers the phenomenon  of the large number of big money drug patents that are going to expire shortly. Just from expiring patents, he estimates that the Big Pharma industry will lose about $50 billion.

He also speaks on U.S. patent law, which allows a company to have exclusive rights to profits from the drugs that they produce. After taking in to consideration related issues, the effective length of the profit period is about 8 years. After that, generics are produced and the sales of the brand name drug plummet. In fact, he says that most drugs never reach a breakeven, since most of them take about a billion to develop.  In this type of pharmaceutical environment, the blockbuster multi-billion dollar profit drug is a critical element in the pharmaceutical drug paradigm. continue reading…

Although this is an orthodox chemotherapy treatment, it is substantial news, and I decided to speak about it nevertheless because of the high scrutiny under which Avastin (bevacizumab) has been subjected.  This substance already has approval for a variety of cancers, such as colon, brain, kidney, and lung cancers.

Bevacizumab (Avastin) works by blocking angiogenesis (i.e., the growth of new blood vessels that enable tumors to grow).  It is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). It was the first angiogenesis inhibitor available in the United States for clinical applications.  It received its first approval for cancer treatment in 2004 when used in combination with standard chemotherapy for metastatic colon cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. continue reading…

Dr Samuel S. Epstein, a world-renowned professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine from the University of Illinois School of Public Health, wrote a scathing indictment of the orthodox cancer establishment.  He has written over 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and 20 books on medical topics.  He is one of the world’s leading critics of the cancer establishment with his insightful, highly documented analysis of the cancer industry.

In short, Epstein’s book (entitled NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE and AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest) states that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), as well as the cancer industry in general, are more focused on profits and maintaining the status quo of orthodox cancer treatments.  There has been no organizational focus on cancer prevention. This is one reason why cancer incidence rates have increased at an astronomical rate. continue reading…

I found an interesting article about how misleading cancer screening accuracy and statistics can be. The old saying is that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The article says that Rudy Giuliani cited data comparing prostate cancer statistics from Britain versus those from the United States. The report said that in Britain, 44% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer were alive 5 years, and that in the US, about 81% of these men were alive 5 years later. He then concluded that the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the US was about twice as high as that in England. continue reading…