"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
It is estimated that the average human body is made up of more than 35 trillion cells, and to provide the necessary replacement for proper growth and maintenance, some studies say there are approximately 220 to 240 billion new cells created every day in the body of the average adult.
With such great cellular growth and production activities, it should not be surprising to know that some billions of those new cells may have mutations, many of which have the potential of becoming carcinogenic. So you might say that potentially everyone, at any given moment, could be walking around with some beginning stage of cancer developing somewhere within their bodies, which can give a doctor probable cause to diagnose some form of cancer, if he should choose to do so.
Whether these cells should actually develop into a malignant tumor, or some other form of cancer seems to depend mainly on the condition of the immune system of the individual, whether they have some developing immunodeficiency.
It seems strange to me, then, that when an AMA doctor decides to diagnose cancer, the only treatments he recommends (chemotherapy or radiation therapy) are destroyers of the immune system, while holistic-type healers, like naturopaths and herbalists always treat such patients by having them build and strengthen their immune systems.
Which one is practicing medical quackery under the training and influence of the pharmaceutically controlled 'medical' schools? According to internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon, Dr. Lorraine Day, that is exactly what is happening, because the bottom line in modern medicine is money, not healing.
In my experience the vast majority of MDs are sincerely interested in helping their patients. Doctors do not "decide" to diagnose cancer. The kinds of microscopic cancers that are thought to come and go are not diagnosable. Moreover, newer forms of cancer treatment are based on changing cell signaling or potentiating the immune system. You are going overboard here and it is neither accurate nor helpful.
Sorry, bear, but Dr. Day, an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon, who was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics,. And was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital and is recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert, seems to disagree with you about almost everything you say.
I'm just repeating her findings, and she obviously has the credentials and experience to back them up. So I would say that your argument is with her, not with me.
It certainly does not help to hide the truth, however there are many who will do anything for money. And those who would benefit by deceptions will go to almost any length to protect their investments in duplicity, as you might perceive by the numerous internet attempts to demonize the character of Dr Day.
And what of basically every other senior doctor at every other medical school and hospital? You're ignoring their positions because Dr Day's suits your existing tinfoil-hat stance.
She makes no claim that any doctor "decides" to diagnose cancer. My dispute is with you, not with her. (I do not necessarily agree with her but that is a different matter)
Dispute all you want, the facts are there for those willing to research them. It should be obvious that doctors will decide to diagnose cancer treatment, when there is monetary incentive to do so. Don't you know that they are paid every time they prescribe chemotherapy?
Above and beyond the prescription itself, the entire process of cancer therapy, itself, is very lucrative for the doctors, and that would make it easy for an MD in need, to decide to diagnose the presence of cancer. Or could an MD possibly be influenced by his financial needs or desires, to diagnose cancer when there was no real need for treatment?
It has happened to hundreds of patients who have been duped into going through chemotherapy when there was no cancer, by doctors such as Gary Marder -
Those are only two of more than a million licensed MDs, who are practicing across the nation. Who knows how many of them are guilty of deciding to do the same thing. Unfortunately, many people will do anything, when the price is right, and regardless of the pedestal upon which they might be placed, doctors are only human.
The bottom line is, it is conceivable that hundreds of doctors are guilty of such malpractice. Dr. Day mentions surveys in which 75 percent of the doctors would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer, because of the inherent negative consequences. Yet they do not hesitate to decide to prescribe such treatment to their own patients.
Doctors who engage in this sort of criminal behavior face drastic consequences - prison, and rightfully so: " Federal prosecutors are seeking a 175-year sentence for Fata"
I agree that the medicine for profit model is wrong. Doctors should be well-paid on salary and not be tempted by these kinds of conflicts of interest: "oncologists make most of their income by buying drugs wholesale and selling them to patients at a marked up prices."
I also have to agree that where there are two that have been shown to be guilty there are probably more. Nonetheless, most doctors do put patient care first and it is not appropriate to bash doctors in general.
Just think, PB, if there were cures for cancer, PD, and so many other diseases, what would happen to the thousands of employees working to find the "cure"??
Do you really believe they haven't found the "cure" for cancer and all the incurable diseases?? Donations keep flowing. . .
There is no question that the profit motive is all too often adverse to the health of patients. Case in point - high-dose thiamine has helped so many here, yet is going begging for funding for a proper trial because there is no money in it. One of many examples.
What I object to is the broad brush bashing of doctors. Most doctors are sincerely interested in helping their patients. Also, doctors are constrained to follow official standards of care, whether they agree or not, on pain of losing their licenses.
Yes, I agree with you. However, there are a lot of doctors who got disgusted with the "system" and big pharma, hung their coats, took their hats and sought alternative therapies/protocols to help suffering people, i.e., Dr. Dean, Dr. Hyman, Dr. Perlmutter and so many others. My hat off to these brave doctors!
Having said that, there are always exceptions to the rule. Within the system, medical doctors use natural alternatives to help their patients, i.e., Dr. C.!
Only one point , In cancer research they are obliged to use mice as in parkinson's. This will find many solutions for mice but the cancer in humans is caused by the mutation of HUMAN cells. This is something even a child understands, but THEY never seem to understand it.
This is because there is not THEM, but only entities fighting each other in total anarchy. I'm talking about AMA, Pharmaceutical Companies, FDA, Patient Associations, Insurance Companies, Government. Those who pay the dues are the doctors, the researchers who are dedicated to helping the sick.
Would you prefer that bleeding edge speculative treatments were trialled on humans?
I can only imagine the magnitude of the anti big-pharma meltdown that would happen on here if a major pharmaceutical company had a serious adverse event when trialling some new treatment on an actual human. Jesus.
Yes, I can see these experimental processes being tried on those who run or control the pharmaceuticals and are responsible for the production and marketing of all the bad drugs.
I think our doctor cares, but it doesn't seem to know how to do anything other than try another drug, which cause tons of side effects. He doesn't question, doesn't wonder. He just moved from one patient to another. It's the fault of the pharma system in conjunction with insurance companies, and it seems that doctors are being trained to be a partner in it.
This whole discussion has not profited anyone. Who is now any closer to being cured from their cancer by it? I do research in cancer (publicly funded) and my partner is currently in cytotoxic treatment for a myeloproliferative neoplasm with no side effects or the need for balancing meds.
Death due to cancer has fallen dramatically in the last 40 years and the treatments go WAY beyond chemo and radiation. Many cancers that were once considered fatal are no longer considered so.
-
Facts & Figures 2018: Rate of Deaths From Cancer Continues Decline
I agree profit is a poor motivator in terms of healthcare optimization, but it does not mean we need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Yes, as I mentioned previously, as happens with all whistle blowers, there have been numerous efforts by her online nemeses to demonize her. But that also provides an excuse for those who don't love the truth, to wallow in their ignorance.
The immune system is perfected by a million years of evolution. wether medicine have sufficient knowledge to intervene without a catastrophic effect? Or just hope to learn by experimentation? why immunological theory cannot predict immunological cancer treatments lead to low blood sugar. quick money shifted focus from learn and intervene to intervene and learn. if the effect is catastrophic will the medicine has the integrity to point itself or will they try to hide?
Obviously English is not your native tongue and you are using Google translate. Yes, evolution works to make humans able to cope with their environment, but the whole point of evolution is that organisms are attacked in new ways. Science has helped humans get ahead of this attack. We have eliminated some of natures worst attacks. Smallpox, polio, measles and other terrible killers are virtually eliminated from human fear, but the internet presents a new attack because of all the false information being supported such as the post here.
Good thigh to know that you are more worried about the language and pride than the content. I guess you will choose to hide rather than show integrity.
I am willing to accept that medicine decrease smallpox, polio and measles. Are you ready to accept medicine created an epidemic of chronic disease diabetes, heart disease, asthma, copd, MS, PD, Autism and so on? At present 2/3rd world population is a chronic disease patient. Medicine's intervention without sufficient knowledge lead to a shift from < 5% communicable disease into> 66% of chronic disease.
The person who counted the number of dogs, horses and other species in the world did not do science. They are just statistics keepers. Darwin who pointed out how species evolved from one another did the real science.
Medicine's claim of doing science is laughable. Only one in ten MTB exposure causes actual TB. Why? Who cares we can count from one to ten we must be doing science? Except Medicine, no other field of science will ignore such fundamental question for 200 years yet claim to do science. Medicine is just statistics keeping passed on as science.
O yes, BCG vaccine offered 85% protection in UK and 0% protection in India. We must be really doing great science.
My comment on language was a poor way of saying, I am sure that in your native tongue you would come across as more educated. My apologies for not explaining that better.
-
As to your other remarks, you make statements with no research to support them. You clearly have a strong bias against medicine and you are entitled to such an opinion, but you should be careful to distinguish between opinion and fact.
-
Diabetes and heart disease are linked to dietary changes:
The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes Prevalence: An Econometric Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Data : ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
-
The prevalence of an increase in MS is an item of research with no clear answer:
and, I could find other research to refute your opinions quite easily, but my goal here is simply to make sure that ignorant comments such as yours have a voice to oppose them on the internet.
-
Also I in no way hide. If you click on my name or avatar you will find a wealth of information about me and if you dig just a little you will find my FB page showing all about me: facebook.com/profile.php?id...
-
I am only interested in elucidating the truth and helping others with neurological disorders find "alternative medicines" that actually have some basis in science and might actually help.
I found myself elated when you said you are looking for alternative medicine.
To find an alternative, you have to know what is wrong with current knowledge.
The mummies in Egypt had atherosclerosis. several ancient literatures have a description of diabetes. either it is not diet or they must have MC Donald and pizza hut in their time. if its diet, the world will not have a uniform increase irrespective of their different diet.
Only the numbers are higher today and the increase in the last 50 years.
why type 2 only after the age of 40? why not when you are children if it is diet? why not all obese people have diabetes? if you started asking questions diet will be on thin ice.
Statistics will hide the question? science will answer the questions
Alternative medicine is not possible without doing alternative science.
else you will be doing quackery by picking and choosing the observation that fits you.
Yes, in fact, immunotherapy has become the latest cancer therapy of interest, as the pharmaceutical technicians have created a new drug that seems to cause the immune systems of the patients/victims to react as if they were on steroids. So, after the cancer cells are destroyed, the side effects are that their immune systems go on to attack and destroy the healthy organs of their bodies.
However they have already created a new drug to control that too, which the victims must take for the rest of their lives, or die. In other words, they become cash-cows for life, and I'll bet those drugs cost a fortune!
I have a brother in law who was put on immunotherapy very recently after completing his chemo and radiation treatments, but they had to stop the immunotherapy treatment that was supposed to last for months, shortly after starting it because they said it was causing damage so he could not continue it. No further clarification on what that damage was.
I hope they were able to stop it before it took control, as my understanding was that once that happens, you must spend the rest of your life being protected from your own immune system, by the steady application of their drugs. I'm going to need to do some more research on this. So don't quote me yet.
They stopped him very quickly and did not explain to him why. They just told him that he would not be able to continue the "immune therapy" and that was that.
Tarz, Thank you for this forthright post! In my humble opinion, you hit the nail squarely on the head! And I have oft lamented the same observation of the mega-funded PD "research." Furthermore, I have made my observations known to MJFF on multiple occasions.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Parkinsons & Prostate cancer
Human Growth Factor from Lion's Mane Mushroom: Good or Bad?
Shining a light on Protein Aggregation in Parkinson's Disease
First Red light therapy in Parkinsons study to be published by Australian researchers
Researchers link vascular defects to progression of Parkinson's disease. nilotinib may help
