Saturday, January 26, 2013

The Battle against the Cancer Industry

The Battle against the Cancer Industry -by Margaret B. Bermel, MBA
Most people accept the concept of chemotherapy unquestioningly, afraid to depart from conventional thinking. Dr. Ulrich Abel declared chemotherapy to be a “scientific wasteland,” and found that “at least 80% of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless—but neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works.”
Dr. Gregory Foltz discovered that oncologists have been targeting the wrong cells in the treatment of brain cancer. Cancer stem cells cause the growth of cancer cells, and stem cells resist chemotherapy. Dr. Foltz explains that this is why “standard cancer treatments so often fail: those therapies target the wrong cells.” A survey of oncologists at McGill University Cancer Center found that 75% would refuse any type of chemotherapy, citing the “ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.”
A study conducted by Harvard researcher John Cairns showed that chemotherapy is “somewhat effective in only 2–3% of cancer patients, primarily those with the rarest kinds of cancer.” The new biotech companies recognize that conventional chemotherapy treatments do not work. The researchers are starting to “think outside the box,” shifting to a systems approach to solve the cancer problem. Why wasn’t this shift made years ago, after the failure of chemotherapy was first observed? The millions of failed trials as evidenced by the deaths of millions of people clearly indicate that the toxic method is erroneous. The chemo experiment is flawed because it does not compare the results of a treatment group taking chemotherapy to the results of a control group that does not take chemotherapy. Yet the cancer industry continues to cling to this “treatment,” ignoring its failure rate. Developed from the mustard gas used in the World Wars, chemo is experimental therapy embraced by mainstream medicine. Cancer patients are the unwitting guinea pigs, participating in a bad science experiment.
We have all been brainwashed into believing that chemo is the only option when faced with a cancer diagnosis. Until people question the basic premise of chemo, it will remain the knee-jerk reaction to cancer. “Big Pharma”, supported by the FDA, has developed a monopoly on the cancer industry. Natural substances can’t be patented and do not generate the billions of dollars that chemical substances do. Natural substances are viewed as a threat to the monopoly because they are inexpensive and effective. Consequently, any alternative natural treatments are systematically suppressed and discredited by the FDA. Once people understand that chemotherapy is about the money, people are empowered to make an informed health care decision. The FDA’s suppression of alternative cancer cures has led to the success of the monopoly, all in the name of protecting the public. In 1986, Mary Yevchak testified before Congress that she was forced to undergo nearly fatal chemotherapy treatment, and had to leave this country for the non-toxic treatment which cured her. Still, the cancer industry is pushing toxic treatments that do not work, and suppressing non-toxic treatments that do work. In 2011, my neighbor’s daughter travels to Germany for treatment, years after a U.S. cancer center told her she had just months to live. The cancer industry is on the wrong path, and people still have to leave this country for non-toxic cancer treatment.
Things have not changed in the approach to cancer, and things will not change until we demand change. American citizens should not have to leave this country to obtain medical treatment of their choice. Be inspired by the efforts of those who are fighting, not only cancer, but the larger battle against the cancer industry. Treatment should result in health, not death. How many people do you know who had chemotherapy and died? People must be offered the freedom to choose non-toxic treatments in this life and death decision. We need to question conventional thinking; we need a thought revolution to change the way we approach cancer.
Excerpted from “The Cancer Odyssey: Discovering Truth and Inspiration on the Way to Wellness” By Margaret Brennan Bermel, MBA. Ms. Bermel is an ovarian cancer survivor and attributes her return to health by balancing the body through nutrition, vitamin supplementation, and exercise. This article is presented for informational purposes only and is intended to provoke thought. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and to make their own health care decisions. Her website is and her blog is Her book is available on and .

Monday, January 14, 2013

How Flimsy, Manipulated Research Leads to more Harmful Pharmaceuticals

How Flimsy, Manipulated Research Leads to more Harmful Pharmaceuticals by Lisa Garber Jan 13th, 2013 | Updated 01/13/2013 . Read more:
From headaches to heartburn, anxiety to cancer, there’s a pharmaceutical for everything these days. Few of us really bother reading the long list of side effects before popping a few pills, and we don’t question our doctors or the so-called medicine for which they make us break the bank. We assume that they all mean well. Maybe they do. Even if that were true, it’ not working. Big Pharma Doesn’t Care About You
Pharmaceuticals are now responsible for more deaths (37,485 dead in 2009) in the United States than traffic fatalities. Nevertheless, the mainstream medical community calls alternative medicine “dangerous,” and the government is all too happy to share the profits in attempting to demonize natural foods like raw milk and their providers whilst reinforcing potentially dangerous—and often unnecessary—flu shots. Peer-reviewed research shows that the good old sunshine nutrient, vitamin D, is more effective as slashing risk of cancer, obesity, tooth decay, and the flu than popular pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration wants walnuts—which are high in omega 3 fatty acids and suspected of helping against breast cancer—to be labeled as “drugs.” According to the Alliance for Natural Health, the FDA is even looking to ban vitamin B6 supplements as we know it so Big Pharma—in this case, the company BioStratum—can patent and sell natural vitamin B sources. Neither the industry sector nor members of our government entangled in it are interested in saving the public or any public institution money (never mind lives). They care about padding their pockets, and poor government review and regulation processes as well as plain bad science are partly to blame for making their jobs easier. Manipulating Studies for the Bottom Line
Back in 2011, N. H. Goldberg co-authored a paper on the hoops drugmakers had to go through to get their drugs approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2010. As it turns out: not many. According to Ben Goldacre from The Guardian, only 70% of the 197 drugs approved between those years were shown to be “better” than existing treatments, even after considering the drugs for conditions there was no existing treatment. Moreover, the studies pharmaceutical companies fund and use to provide what little evidence the FDA requires range from being too specific to be used for drugs later administered to an over-generalized clientele (as in the case for a Finnish study fracture-prevention drugs) or downright misleading. (There’s a reason the Mayo Clinic admitted that the last 10 years of cancer research has been made useless by evidence of widespread fraud.)
“…for FDA approval, for example, you only need trials to show your drug is better than a placebo. That’s nice, but with most medical problems, we’ve already got some kind of treatment. We’re not interested in whether your drug is better than nothing. We’re interested in whether it’s better than the best currently available option.” Studies and statistics are kind of funny that way. They can be manipulated or framed a certain way and, voila, what was black is white, what saved lives is deadly. In the case of the Finnish study, 7,411 patients who had ever had a hip fracture were rounded up as they might have been for fracture-preventing bisphosphonate drug trials. Only 1,072 patients remained after the researchers dropped the others for being of a sex, age, and health condition other than what previous researchers would have called the desired, “freakishly ideal” patient. Are the drugs in question marketed toward women between 65 and 79 without osteoporosis after the trials? Not likely.
At the end of the day, modern medicine seems to be more often a matter of getting the desired results and short-term cost effectiveness, and less often about helping people. It’s up to us to change that.
Read more: