Newsletter #300
Lee Euler, Editor
It's no secret that mainstream American medicine relies heavily on evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies. But that world is being turned on its head. According to researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis, writing in the prestigious journal Nature, 89 percent of the published cancer studies they reviewed cannot be reproduced.
What does this mean? Easy: Those studies are wrong. Or at the very least, they don't provide the irrefutable evidence on which doctors claim to base their treatments. Not to beat around the bush, Begley and Ellis have exposed a whole world of fraud. Let's hold our noses and take a look. .
The whole foundation of science is that if one scientist's experimental results are valid then another scientist can reproduce them by doing exactly the same thing in the same way. If you get a different outcome each time you run an experiment then the results are random and — essentially — meaningless.
It's fraud, pure and simple, to use non-reproducible research to guide medical practice. That's the very accusation medical doctors are always hurling at alternative medicine. Now we see the pot has been calling the kettle black. It's major drug companies that are conducting bogus research and who are missing the mark on exactly what kinds of chemical cocktails are needed to fight cancer.
Worse, the problem goes deeper than flawed scientific research. A lot of money, power, and influence appear to play a role — and the beneficiary isn't public health, it's Big Pharma.
Outdated and misguided cancer treatments
While any kind of study is subject to some human error, the studies reviewed by Begley and Ellis are missing the boat in major ways. Only six out of the 53 "landmark" published papers they reviewed could be reproduced in a clinical setting.
Instead of being taken with a grain of salt, as they should have been, these studies became the basis for introducing revolutionary approaches to cancer treatment. Entire healthcare guidelines and clinical treatment protocols have been designed around these results.
Worse still, a significant amount of published research appears to have been conducted under the cloud of conflicts of interest. Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., who authored a study through the University of Michigan, found a considerable percentage of cancer research was made questionable by ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, Big Pharma is behind the research, paying scientists to confirm that certain drugs will work in cancer treatment.
Once those treatments are officially "confirmed," they're pushed into hospitals and doctors' offices with a heavy price tag attached. Now, funding by a drug company isn't proof as such that a study is dishonest, but it's a red flag.
Funding of studies through Big Pharma was the most common type of conflict of interest, seen in 17 percent of papers. The next most common problem was studies in which the authors were drug industry employees, which happened in about 12 percent of studies.
Without pointing the finger at any one study, the results of these studies are suspicious when taken as a whole. For example, in the studies with reported conflicts of interest, randomized trials were more likely to find the drug was safe and effective. Truly independent studies were less likely to reach the same conclusion.
Instead of being taken with a grain of salt, as they should have been, these studies became the basis for introducing revolutionary approaches to cancer treatment. Entire healthcare guidelines and clinical treatment protocols have been designed around these results.
Worse still, a significant amount of published research appears to have been conducted under the cloud of conflicts of interest. Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., who authored a study through the University of Michigan, found a considerable percentage of cancer research was made questionable by ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, Big Pharma is behind the research, paying scientists to confirm that certain drugs will work in cancer treatment.
Once those treatments are officially "confirmed," they're pushed into hospitals and doctors' offices with a heavy price tag attached. Now, funding by a drug company isn't proof as such that a study is dishonest, but it's a red flag.
Funding of studies through Big Pharma was the most common type of conflict of interest, seen in 17 percent of papers. The next most common problem was studies in which the authors were drug industry employees, which happened in about 12 percent of studies.
Without pointing the finger at any one study, the results of these studies are suspicious when taken as a whole. For example, in the studies with reported conflicts of interest, randomized trials were more likely to find the drug was safe and effective. Truly independent studies were less likely to reach the same conclusion.
Why the majority of cancer research is compromised
The data from any legitimate scientific study should be treated objectively, but this new research makes it clear that those with a conflict of interest are biased in their analyses — whether the scientists are deliberately committing fraud or are biased without realizing it.
Sadly, evidence suggests the majority of these scientists know they are working with tainted research. When Begley and Ellis approached study authors for details of their experiments, the two were asked to sign agreements that they would not disclose their findings or their sources — proof that the study authors were aware of their own misleading results.
Along with that, very few scientists involved in anti-cancer research disclose any potential sources of bias, even though all scientists are expected to sign conflict-of-interest and sources-of-funding statements before publishing any work.
The fact remains that cancer is a major killer. Over half a million Americans died from cancer last year, and another 1.6 million cases were diagnosed. The amount of money involved in their treatment is stupefying — more than enough to light up the eyes of the greedy. Big Pharma is well aware that a lot of money can be made off these people, who are often frightened and willing to try any treatment, pay any price.
It's a classic example of "disease mongering" where the industry widens the definition of treatable illness just to expand the market, when really, the vast majority of small cancers and early-diagnosis cases can be treated naturally and by supplementing a patient's immune system, while the expensive treatments are all but worthless against late-stage cancer.
Sadly, evidence suggests the majority of these scientists know they are working with tainted research. When Begley and Ellis approached study authors for details of their experiments, the two were asked to sign agreements that they would not disclose their findings or their sources — proof that the study authors were aware of their own misleading results.
Along with that, very few scientists involved in anti-cancer research disclose any potential sources of bias, even though all scientists are expected to sign conflict-of-interest and sources-of-funding statements before publishing any work.
The fact remains that cancer is a major killer. Over half a million Americans died from cancer last year, and another 1.6 million cases were diagnosed. The amount of money involved in their treatment is stupefying — more than enough to light up the eyes of the greedy. Big Pharma is well aware that a lot of money can be made off these people, who are often frightened and willing to try any treatment, pay any price.
It's a classic example of "disease mongering" where the industry widens the definition of treatable illness just to expand the market, when really, the vast majority of small cancers and early-diagnosis cases can be treated naturally and by supplementing a patient's immune system, while the expensive treatments are all but worthless against late-stage cancer.
How can we raise standards for cancer treatment?
Our medical community, our government, and the public at large have essentially been hoodwinked by the unscrupulous players of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, the government and some members of the medical community are partners in the fraud. The end result is that major drug companies determine which treatments can be legally used, and how much they'll cost.
The question that remains is how to separate legitimate cancer research from a manipulative, self-interested drug industry. Dr. Jagsi calls for more public funding and general support so medical research doesn't have to rely on industry funding.
I believe more aggressive and generous funding of research into alternatives would yield important breakthroughs, with the important stamp of scientific approval the public craves. This taxpayer-funded research should then be non-patented and available to all.
Instead, the system works in the opposite way: Research that's largely funded by the taxpayers and by private "nonprofit" sources somehow becomes someone's private property and the very taxpayers who paid to find the cure have to pay millions to get access to it if they have cancer.
I believe eventually the present system is going to collapse because it's so incredibly expensive and it doesn't cure people. The public is turning to alternative treatments because they're affordable and effective. Many oncologists as well as doctors from other specialties are frantically trying to learn about natural and alternative treatments because that's what their patients are asking for.
The kind of fool who tells his cancer patients, "Eat whatever you like, there's no evidence of a connection between food and cancer," is going to wind up as a museum exhibit, in the same category as those barbers who used to moonlight as doctors by bleeding people. (George Washington was killed by a doctor who "bled" him to cure an infection — it was considered advanced medical science back then. Lucky were the poor people who couldn't afford the "best" medical care.)
In the meantime, your best bet is to question everything. If your own well-meaning doctor quotes a study that he or she feels should determine your cancer treatment, question it. Get a second opinion. Look at other studies. Dig for results on natural treatments and herbal remedies. We do our best to present them here to you, but without the deep pockets of Big Pharma it's virtually impossible to get the same kind of exposure for natural treatments that work as we see for invasive drug methods.
And of course, do everything you can to take your health into your own hands and practice smart eating and consistent exercise habits. Care of your own body's immune system is the one thing that's been proven time and again as the best way to prevent and treat cancer.
Source: http://cancerdefeated.com/newsletters/Can-This-Simple-Water-Purifier-Also-Cure-Cancer2.htmlThe question that remains is how to separate legitimate cancer research from a manipulative, self-interested drug industry. Dr. Jagsi calls for more public funding and general support so medical research doesn't have to rely on industry funding.
I believe more aggressive and generous funding of research into alternatives would yield important breakthroughs, with the important stamp of scientific approval the public craves. This taxpayer-funded research should then be non-patented and available to all.
Instead, the system works in the opposite way: Research that's largely funded by the taxpayers and by private "nonprofit" sources somehow becomes someone's private property and the very taxpayers who paid to find the cure have to pay millions to get access to it if they have cancer.
I believe eventually the present system is going to collapse because it's so incredibly expensive and it doesn't cure people. The public is turning to alternative treatments because they're affordable and effective. Many oncologists as well as doctors from other specialties are frantically trying to learn about natural and alternative treatments because that's what their patients are asking for.
The kind of fool who tells his cancer patients, "Eat whatever you like, there's no evidence of a connection between food and cancer," is going to wind up as a museum exhibit, in the same category as those barbers who used to moonlight as doctors by bleeding people. (George Washington was killed by a doctor who "bled" him to cure an infection — it was considered advanced medical science back then. Lucky were the poor people who couldn't afford the "best" medical care.)
In the meantime, your best bet is to question everything. If your own well-meaning doctor quotes a study that he or she feels should determine your cancer treatment, question it. Get a second opinion. Look at other studies. Dig for results on natural treatments and herbal remedies. We do our best to present them here to you, but without the deep pockets of Big Pharma it's virtually impossible to get the same kind of exposure for natural treatments that work as we see for invasive drug methods.
And of course, do everything you can to take your health into your own hands and practice smart eating and consistent exercise habits. Care of your own body's immune system is the one thing that's been proven time and again as the best way to prevent and treat cancer.
