I had done a previous article on GM crops, and decided to do another, more in-depth review of this subject. Originally, I was going to cover possible links between genetically modified foods and cancer. But in the process of reviewing a PowerPoint presentation based on the award-winning movie, Seeds of Deception by GMO activist Jeffrey Smith, I was totally floored by the extent of the danger of genetically modified food elements. It is a literal Pandora’s Box of danger. Preliminary studies have linked GMO foods with cancer, degenerative diseases, birth defects, sterility, and other health conditions.
This is a video presentation given by Jeffrey Smith. It is entitled It’s In Your Food: Your Right to Know Forum. It is a great video on the dangers of GM food. It is about 38 minutes long, and is very informative. You really need to watch it.
Read on »
Despite danger and warnings at every corner, GM crops have been foisted upon the world, especially in America.
I found an article in the Wall Street Journal that shows that the rate of retractions of scientific studies in scientific journals has proliferated over the last decade. Data compiled for the WSJ by Thompson-Reuters shows that the number of research articles published since 2001 increased by 44%, while during the same period the number of articles retracted increased 15 times.
Read on »
This has an effect on all scientific research, even cancer research and treatment. In one instance, research at the Mayo Clinic was set back about a decade. They found that some experiments that were related to the use of the body’s own immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. This incidence of fraud ended up leading to the retraction of 17 research papers that were published in nine scientific journals.
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.
Read on »
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.
I found an article in which a leading breast cancer surgeon strongly admonished the Prince of Wales for him publicly supporting alternative cancer therapy for cancer patients. Although this report isn’t as timely as I would have liked (around 2004), it is very instructive as to the mindset of many medical professionals, and how they view things. I decided to analyze what the physician was saying so that you could better see how they think.
Read on »
Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London basically told Prince Charles that he was full of it. The Prince was supporting the Gerson therapy for cancer (and many other diseases). I do realize that this therapy doesn’t work for everybody (no treatment or therapy has a 100% cure rate), but Dr. Gerson did have a success rate that was higher than that for conventional cancer treatments(which is said to really be closer to 3% than what they claim it is).
There are various people who describe the extent to which Big Pharma has infested the entire medical research process, as well as the regulatory function. It has devolved into a big circus where the ringmasters and workers all share in the profits, all at the expense of the audience and the joke is on the unwitting patients who actually think that they are being given the most advanced, benevolent, modern medical care available. This is obviously not the case.
Before 1980, most drug research was performed by university professors. After 1991, the drug studies were starting to be performed by Big Pharma companies. It was either performed by their employed scientists, or was funded by pharmaceutical companies. There is one glaring problem with this arrangement. This put the entire research process under the control of Big Pharma companies that stood to gain from releasing their drugs on schedule, and with no obstacles such as pesky toxicity and bad side effects.
Read on »
This is the third installment of this video series on Big Pharma and how it operates. The bottom line is that Big Pharma’s biggest priority is to make money, and everything else is secondary. This video series is an illustration of this. Cancer patients need to understand these facts before agreeing to any treatments that involve drugs, especially with drugs as toxic as chemotherapy. If these people are this ruthless and profit-seeking with these drugs, how much confidence does that inspire in a patient who may be seen as nothing more than a profitable sale?
I am not accusing all physicians of being complicit in this. Although they ought to know better, many physicians have been subjected to indoctrination by medical school educations that have been heavily influenced by Big Pharma. So most doctors have a definite bias towards the use of drugs.
Read on »
I couldn’t contain myself after going to a blog that discusses cancer treatments. They were essentially talking negatively about homeopathic treatments for cancer in this blog post. I found it interesting. I am not sure about the effectiveness of homeopathy treatments for any disease. Personally, I haven’t seen or found any evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy. It seemed to me to be an easy target for derision. I noticed that they didn’t choose to discuss any more efficacious treatments, such as Laetrile/B-17, Hoxsey’s formula, Essiac, etc.
Read on »
So I went ahead and posted my own comments on the topic. I think it was a board that will probably be adverse to my comments and views, but I went ahead and posted it anyway. I’ll just post here what I said and let you check it out:
Award-winning Professor of Medicine, Dr. Samuel Epstein speaks out on the truth about the American Cancer Society (ACS). Unfortunately, the video has been removed, but I did write a summary of it below.
Read on »
He starts by talking about how laden women’s cosmetics and many widely-used skin care products are full of carcinogenic chemicals that are readily absorbed through the skin.
There have been reports and articles that discuss the practice of mammography. It is alleged that there has been overscreening for breast cancer and conflicts of interests on major boards. Five radiologists have served as presidents of the American Cancer Society (ACS). The ACS has a great tendency to promote the interests of the manufacturers of mammogram devices and films, which included Siemens, Piker, General Electric, DuPont and Eastman Kodak.
Read on »
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein and Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D report that the mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and makes large donations to it. They do all sorts of promotional things for ACS. In short, ACS is very strongly linked with the mammography industry, while attacking and ignoring breast self examination, procedures that don’t produce profits for the cancer industry.
I found an excellent, but disturbing story on a chemical that is a weed killer (atrazine). The chemical is being found in drinking water. The problem is that the companies that manufacture this chemical are also the ones who are paying for the studies that the EPA is using to evaluate its safety! Talk about a major conflict of interest!
Read on »
The vast majority of the studies that the EPA is using to determine whether or not this chemical is dangerous are industry-funded studies that have not been peer-reviewed. More alarming is the fact that the independent studies that have demonstrated some potentially toxic effects of this chemical are not being included in the EPA’s evaluation process. Many of these independent studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.