Islander
11-09-10, 07:18 PM
By Tony Isaacs (http://www.healthiertalk.com/users/dquixote1217) on 11/08/2010
On the same day of the highly publicized "Stand Up to Cancer" telethon, the mainstream media widely ran an article titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no cure". The top three "incurable" cancers listed were cancers of the lung, colon and breast followed by pancreatic, prostate, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver, ovarian and esophageal cancers. An accurate report would have been titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no mainstream cure".
The article stated that, "Cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, crafty cancer cells are able to hide out in some patients and resurface." According to the article, we have spent about $200 Billion on cancer research since the early 1970's and there has been a rise in five-year survival rates for all people diagnosed with cancer from about 50 percent in the early 1970's to 65 percent today.
Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, stated "We would not be where we are if basic and clinical science wasn't funded. Basic science teaches us about mechanisms, about how drugs may be effective, and we take that info and put it into a clinic to find out whether or not those new ideas work in cancer treatment."
An accurate article would have pointed out that five-year survival is not at all the same as a cure. It would also have revealed that the five-year survival rates have increased largely due to earlier detection and the statistical inclusion of highly curable pre-cancerous conditions such as DCIS - which was not considered to be a cancer in the 1970's. A truly accurate article would also have told us about the natural and alternative cancer "cures" which have had outstanding success against even the most deadly cancers and would have listed the real reasons there is no cancer cure in sight for mainstream medicine, such as:
1. Almost all of the $200 Billion spent on cancer research has been spent either looking for genetic links, looking for ways to detect cancer earlier once it is already established, or looking for improved drugs and treatments that fit into the same mainstream paradigm of the past 40 years: trying to cut out, poison out or burn out the symptoms of cancer instead of addressing the root causes in order to actually cure cancer and prevent its return.
2. Cancer has become a bloated $300 to $400 Billion a year industry, including charitable foundations such as the American Cancer Society and other agencies with high salaries and perks. The continued existence and profits of the cancer industry depend on NOT finding a cure for cancer.
3. In medical schools whose major source of funding comes from big pharmaceutical companies and whose curriculum is controlled by the AMA, oncologists and other doctors are taught virtually nothing about the importance of proper diet and nutrition or about the healing and immune boosting herbs found in nature. Notably, you cannot patent nature. You may be able to patent synthetics and unique isolates based on nature, but that is not at all the same as natural items with all the supporting synergistic compounds.
4. Alternative therapies are little funded and are in fact vigorously suppressed because of the threat they represent to mainstream profits.
5. The people whose toxic products cause cancer and the people who profit from cancer direct research away from the true causes of cancer and towards the treatments and drugs they profit from.
6. Scant attention or research is directed towards prevention.
http://tinyurl.com/24hredx
On the same day of the highly publicized "Stand Up to Cancer" telethon, the mainstream media widely ran an article titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no cure". The top three "incurable" cancers listed were cancers of the lung, colon and breast followed by pancreatic, prostate, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver, ovarian and esophageal cancers. An accurate report would have been titled "The top 10 deadliest cancers and why there's no mainstream cure".
The article stated that, "Cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, crafty cancer cells are able to hide out in some patients and resurface." According to the article, we have spent about $200 Billion on cancer research since the early 1970's and there has been a rise in five-year survival rates for all people diagnosed with cancer from about 50 percent in the early 1970's to 65 percent today.
Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, stated "We would not be where we are if basic and clinical science wasn't funded. Basic science teaches us about mechanisms, about how drugs may be effective, and we take that info and put it into a clinic to find out whether or not those new ideas work in cancer treatment."
An accurate article would have pointed out that five-year survival is not at all the same as a cure. It would also have revealed that the five-year survival rates have increased largely due to earlier detection and the statistical inclusion of highly curable pre-cancerous conditions such as DCIS - which was not considered to be a cancer in the 1970's. A truly accurate article would also have told us about the natural and alternative cancer "cures" which have had outstanding success against even the most deadly cancers and would have listed the real reasons there is no cancer cure in sight for mainstream medicine, such as:
1. Almost all of the $200 Billion spent on cancer research has been spent either looking for genetic links, looking for ways to detect cancer earlier once it is already established, or looking for improved drugs and treatments that fit into the same mainstream paradigm of the past 40 years: trying to cut out, poison out or burn out the symptoms of cancer instead of addressing the root causes in order to actually cure cancer and prevent its return.
2. Cancer has become a bloated $300 to $400 Billion a year industry, including charitable foundations such as the American Cancer Society and other agencies with high salaries and perks. The continued existence and profits of the cancer industry depend on NOT finding a cure for cancer.
3. In medical schools whose major source of funding comes from big pharmaceutical companies and whose curriculum is controlled by the AMA, oncologists and other doctors are taught virtually nothing about the importance of proper diet and nutrition or about the healing and immune boosting herbs found in nature. Notably, you cannot patent nature. You may be able to patent synthetics and unique isolates based on nature, but that is not at all the same as natural items with all the supporting synergistic compounds.
4. Alternative therapies are little funded and are in fact vigorously suppressed because of the threat they represent to mainstream profits.
5. The people whose toxic products cause cancer and the people who profit from cancer direct research away from the true causes of cancer and towards the treatments and drugs they profit from.
6. Scant attention or research is directed towards prevention.
http://tinyurl.com/24hredx