In the Lining Pockets with Tax Dollars Dept.

One of the latest ideas in the mainstream medical community is working third (graveyard) shift can cause cancer.

What remains to be seen is just how far they will ride this new wave of fear to collect money from government grants for more "studies" and how many useless new drugs the Pharma-Industry will profit from.

The American Cancer Society Web site notes that carcinogens do not always cause cancer. The cancer society doesn't make its own assessments of possible cancer-causing agents, but relies on analyses by the IARC and a U.S. agency.

Of course. They have to acknowledge that carcinogens don't always cause cancer because just about everyone is exposed to carcinogens every single day. What they won't acknowledge is that it's the human body's capacity to destroy itself, or allow carcinogens to become cancerous cells, that is the 'cause' of cancer. There are numerous doctors, scientists, and such researchers that have made discoveries with regards to cancer that don't agree with mainstream medicine. They are blackballed and discredited as a result. Granted some of them have been genuine quacks, but others have solid positions. One good example of this phenomenom is the story of Patch Adams. There are several resources on the net and in books that detail the stories of such doctors/researchers like Dr. Hamer of Germany, whose research was supposed to be tested to prove it's reliability.

'On December 16, 1986, Professor Voigt, Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen was asked in court, whether Dr. Hamer could be right with his 'New Medicine'. Prof. Voigt affirmed this, adding: "Conventional medicine knows practically nothing about cancer." The Dean was also asked, if it is correct what Dr. Hamer claims, that the New Medicine could be scientifically reproduced and tested within just one or two days. Prof. Voigt: "If in one, two or three days, I am not sure, but in principle he is right." Asked if he could remember that he had promised Dr. Hamer back in 1981 that the New Medicine would be tested as to its scientific accuracy, Prof. Voigt answered: "It is correct that I promised that, however, the Medical Faculty rejected the evaluation of the thesis. That is why I could not keep my promise" The committee rejected his work (150:0 votes with no abstention)!


Judge Dr. Iber asked the Dean:

'Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and you also admit that it would be possible to scientifically test the accuracy of his findings within one to three days! But if his New Medicine is correct, then you must approve it'
Prof. Voigt: 'Yes'.

Dr. Iber: 'Now I am at a loss. Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and that you could test that within a short period of time. So why don't you test his findings.'

Prof. Voigt: 'We don't want to know, whether Hamer is right.'

Dr. Iber: 'What. You don't even want to find out, whether Dr. Hamer's 'New Medicine' is correct? This is a post-doctoral thesis. You are legally obliged to test it.'

Prof. Voigt: 'That is incorrect. We are only obliged to perform the proceedings. We are not interested in whether Dr. Hamer is right.'

Dr. Iber: 'In other words, you don't want to find out, although it would be an easy procedure to do so and although you are bound by law to test his findings and although it would have far-reaching consequences.'
Prof. Voigt: 'No, we don't want to know. And I will always vote against Dr. Hamer, no matter what he writes.'

There are also hundreds of quotes like these:

"A study completed in 1993 by a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel found that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with standard allopathic treatment (chemo, radiation, & surgery) was just 4%. That's right. Statistically averaged, 96% of cancer patients treated conventionally died of cancer or from complications related to their 'treatment'. The only group of cancers treated conventionally that had a higher batting average were some blood cancers such as leukemia or Hodgskins which approached a 35% success rate."

"...Irwin Bross, a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, he's found that many people who've been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy.
For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck."

Animal research does not work, as every species of animal is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Non-human animals are different not only from humans, but also from each other: anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, genetically and histologically.
Animals react differently to different drugs, vaccines and chemical substances, not only from humans but also from each other. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine - one of the deadliest poisons for humans but not for monkeys.
Human diseases cannot be recreated in animals because once a disease is 'recreated' it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease that the body itself produced.
Our environment - air, land, water and food supplies - is being systematically destroyed by thousands of pesticides and toxicants that no matter how destructive are routinely and conveniently found safe and thus allowed to be marketed based on inherently invalid and misleading animal tests.
1999 Cancer Research Review

It is estimated that in the United States of America 33% of people will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. The incidence of cancer in USA has gone up 18 percent and the death rate 7 percent since President Nixon declared the "war on cancer" in 1971. After spending billions of dollars and decades of massive effort not only has cancer not been stopped but also its incidence has increased.
SUPRESS, "Cancer: Losing a war that could easily be won", The Vanguard, reprinted in The Guardian Newsletter (Australia), Vol. 3, No. 10, Spring 1997.

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 Ph.D. (1901-1994), two times Nobel Prize winner

I was contacted by a lady who successfully dealt with her breast cancer from 1994 to present. She refused all conventional medical procedures. Last year her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool not to get a needle biopsy. This lady now has new tumors growing at each puncture site. Of course her oncologist now has detailed information to help decide which chemos to use for this now rapidly metastasizing cancer. I repeatedly make this same observation with prostate cancer. I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy -- and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.
Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology (CSNO) Solana Beach, California (non profit)

Compare this observation of metastasis, which by the way is an unproven theory, to Dr. Hamer's conclusions. Sir James Paget came up with the "seed and soil" theory in 1889 and James Ewing, MD, an American pathologist, proposed his circulation theory in 1928. These theories are still being relied upon, although recently they have come up with this idea:

Metastasis is a highly inefficient, multi-step process that requires cancer cells to jump through many hoops. The cells first must invade a nearby tissue, then make their way into the blood or lymphatic vessels. Next they must migrate through the bloodstream to a distant site, exit the bloodstream, and establish new colonies. The entire operation involves so many steps that it raises an obvious question: How do cancer cells cobble these behaviors together and acquire the ability to do all this? According to the new study, they don't. Rather, they hijack an existing cellular process and use it to disperse throughout the body.

Reporting in the June 25 issue of the journal Cell, the research team headed by Weinberg describes how a breast carcinoma in mice misappropriates a protein called Twist. Twist is a gene regulator, meaning that it tells genes when to turn on and when to turn off. But Twist is mainly active in early embryonic development, where it enables cells to move from one part of an embryo to another and allocate these cells into different tissues. As an embryo develops, Twist's functions no longer are necessary, and it soon becomes dormant in most tissues throughout the rest of an organism's life.

Through a process that still is somewhat unclear to researchers, tumor cells reactivate this long-dormant protein and thereby acquire the ability to move throughout the body.
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/wifb-nii062104.php

And there is also this rather bold stance:

Metastasis--an alternative hypothesis.
Freireich EJ, Kurzrock R, Estrov Z.
Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. efreirei@mdanderson.org
The currently accepted models of metastasis are inconsistent with many clinical observations of the natural history of cancer and its response to therapy. Specifically, the authors suggest that it is time for a "paradigm shift." It is time to reject the "local, regional, systemic hypothesis" of cancer and replace it with a hypothesis more consistent with the clinical facts, specifically, that cancer exists in many different forms (i.e. localized disease arising from locally acting carcinogens, which can spread locally and should be treated locally, and cancer that arises as localized disease but evolves to more malignant invasive disease [the current model of metastasis]).

My expertise is in computers - networking, security, databases, programming, etc., etc. - not medicine. However, I'm a person of above-average intelligence, or as some have called me - borderline genius (there's a fine line between genius and insanity, and I dance all over it).

From a logical and evidential standpoint metastasis seems to be a physical/biological impossibility which the medical community largely acknowledges but chooses to ignore. If we compare/apply this theory to the computer world we would have a worm or virus which affects windows machines with certain software. This worm takes advantage of some security hole in a particular version of IIS for example and does all sorts of nasty things to the machines that have it. Now it may be possible for the code to morph and include some vulnerability in Apache web servers with insecure PHP setups and start attacking them, for the sake of example we will say that there is a similarity. It could morph and start attacking other windows machines through various vulnerabilites, they are part of the same 'system.' But let's then say that this same virus/worm attacks Linux and MAC desktop systems that don't run any internet services or that it attacks cisco and other routers, or it starts destroying motherboard components and physical transmission lines. It can't happen. The code would have to be completely different in order to run on different systems. Something could be done with a cross-platform running virus, say it programmed to do its dirty work by running in JAVA. Here again, not all systems would have this and almost certainly this would include all routers. Then hardware is another animal altogether... This is the absurdity of the metastasis theory.

The theory of metastasis is the most often cited excuse used to justify chemotherapy. Frequently such treatments are not covered by insurance and must be paid by the patient out of pocket. The issue is that profit and greed is what runs the system, moreso or rather than a concern for patients' well-being and good health. And with that I will end this rant with the following quotes and urge the reader to take on the responsibility of deciding for themselves what is best for their own health and well-being:

Over 75% of the oncologists polled said that if they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy [conventional cancer treatment's main weapon in the 'war on cancer'] they prescribe for their patients on themselves because of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Los Angeles Times report

If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.
Professor Georges Mathé, French cancer specialist

...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society

As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, YOUR BEST CHANCE OF LIVING TO A RIPE OLD AGE IS TO AVOID DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AND LEARN NUTRITION, HERBAL MEDICINE AND OTHER FORMS OF NATURAL MEDICINE. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. THE TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DEGENERATIVE DISEASES IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be.
Dr. Allan Greenberg on 12/24/2002