Investigating Cancer

I am going to start investigating two internet series produced by similar groups - one on vaccines and one on cancer.

Before I examine these series I must point out the following:-

These are medical matters. Unbiassed medicine and science can be the only sources of truth on these matters. But that is not the same as saying if medicine and science say it it is true. What makes one scientist say one thing etc., and the answer is quite simply bias due to funding.

In this day and age medical and scientific research costs a huge amount of money. When it comes to cancer there are huge profits earned by BigPharma through chemotherapy. BigPharma pays for their own research to find drugs but they also exert pressure on government funding agencies who might want to investigate alternative therapies. A sensible compromise for me would be BigPharma invests their money in drug research, and the public contributions to cancer research examine alternatives such as Gerson and so on.

Here is a story given to me by a person who has faith in science. In Holland there was a famous singer who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She chose to ignore medical advice which said at that stage her cancer was curable, and went to a faith healer. She died and the medical establishment (of one form or another) sued the faith healer. This was supposed to persuade me against alternatives. Firstly I do not dismiss faith healing but it was not this that I ask funding for scientific investigation - I wonder if faith healing can be investigated scientifically. Although I am a Buddhist I do not believe in Buddhism, I require experience of any Buddhist dogma before I say it is true. But why was the faith healer sued? Because the medical established backed by BigPharma profits were trying to deter people from going to alternatives. Can we sue BigPharma if we die from cancer? Maybe but the legal system is so biassed against ordinary people because they are financed out of court. BigPharma pays a huge amount for a legal department to make such cases go away.

When investigating cancer we have to be unbiassed. Science is not neutral in this because science is based on funding. This does not mean that science is lying, it means that science can only tell the truth of what it has investigated. What is very clear is that science has not investigated all avenues concerning cancer.

Some would argue that doctors and oncologists should be current on all the scientific research, I do not accept this. It is quite reasonable for hard-working doctors and oncologists to accept what medical schools and professional conferences say about cancer. Their job is to treat patients and not do medical research. However they are also the people with the medical knowledge of how treatment is working so as a resource base their knowledge needs to be evaluated. I question whether this is done - but I do not know.

In this blog I questioned cancer research and asked "With regards to the existing practices I have many questions, and these revolve around the current cancer treatment practices. I have the feeling that many oncologists accept chemotherapy because there is nothing better. But what about research into this decision? Are the side effects more harmful than the benefits of the treatment?

"As far as I know there are different chemotherapy drugs used for different types of cancer, are these known and established? Is it known that such a drug will work on such a cancer for all the various stages? When does such a drug not work?

"Are there cancers in which there is no treatment?"

Again in Holland I was advised that if you visited a doctor and were diagnosed with cancer you would be told what success rates different doctors have had in different locations with different types of cancer. This appears to answer my questions, and I don't take that lightly. But if that is the case why are the scientists who work on alternative therapies so critical of the chemo treatments. "They have a vested interest" would be the system response - and they do have. But BigPharma medicine is also biassed. So the issue comes down to trust.

And that trust is primarily based on the system ignoring evidence that appears to have been scientifically gathered that some alternative therapies such as Gerson work on cancer. As a sceptic I want them investigated before I can trust a treatment that tells me that I have to destroy healthy tissue in order to destroy unhealthy tissue. I also cannot trust a system that says Farrah Fawcett's death is the only way to go for some people. If her oncologists were telling her that had to happen, then why weren't they recommending healthy eating and therapy that would at least have made her dying more comfortable?

None of this makes sense to me as a sceptic, and as a person who has some understanding of the control and power of 1%-influence in our political system I am deeply suspicious.

So I am going to consider two internet series "The Truth About Cancer" and "The Quest for the Cure". From what I know I am sympathetic to their objectives but the level of independent funding they have makes me highly suspicious. I am sceptical of their purpose.

People like the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, have dismissed MSM (as in many cases I do). They dismiss them as having liberal bias as I do - the Republican/Trump division of "Fake News", and they seek solutions on the right through politics such as libertarianism. In the US this is just promotion of the 1% because it promotes Republicanism. If Trump is not a demonstration of such misguided politics, then I don't know what is.

When I see politics on the right wing I again have doubts. However the funding reaches these alternative advocates, why does money want to support their analyses? I believe there is a conspiracy - the 1%-system. The 1%-system is that wealth accumulates to the 1%, that they control governments, and war and wage-slavery are their main means of profit-making and control.

But right-wing conspiracies muddy the waters as they primarily attack government as the source of the problem, and then attack collectivisation as well because they are fiercely individualistic. The internet has fostered this fierce individualism through right-wing funding because the intended consequence, as illustrated by Trump, creates confusion. These individualists often support libertarianism, and libertarianism asks many good questions, but libertarianism supports a free and unregulated market but ignores the consequence that such a market will be controlled by cartels and other regulated mechanisms in the interest of the 1%. So whilst libertarians do not support the 1% their platform does and this is why they continue to receive funding - directly or indirectly from the 1%.

I have just started listening to the cancer stuff and it is full of these right-wing undertones - hence their funding. I have no doubts at all that these people are genuine (OK some minor doubts) - I do not believe they are in it because they are paid puppets, they believe what they say.

Just because they are right-wing does not make them wrong - or right. Just because I am left-wing does not make me right but I have a good start - my concerns start with compassion for all - not compassion for the individual.

For example one of the key underlying themes is that BigPharma makes huge profits from the cancer industry. This is an indisputable fact. Does BigPharma control government? In my view this is equally true although not so easily proveable. Equally BigFood is a significant player in this because of the way these right-wing individualists see cancer, and BigFood has a vested interest in maintaining the current mainstream understanding. This is equally evident.

Before examining the materials let us be clear about perceptions of these apparent conspiracies. When I first learned my Marxism we were expected to analyse. We could never analyse based on all the facts because governments don't give you all the facts since those governments are puppets of the bourgeoisie (1%). How do we know such analyses are true? We don't. So we took such analyses to the comrades and we analysed together. Together, did it make sense? Do we know the analysis is true? Of course not. Do we know that what we are told is true? Definitely false, but where? False if the truth does not benefit the 1%. We sought comrades globally whose understanding was like-minded and that is where our knowledge came from. What we did was correct but is also the problem with the alt-right now, we only listened to our comrades. So do they but their comrades are Breitbart, 1%-funded propaganda to confuse and divide. There are right-wingers who criticise collectivisation, why? Collectivisation just means for all the people. This is their individualism, their problem as individualists, they feel they have rights over the collective. It is my view that the collective needs to be tolerant and helpful towards individual needs but compassion for all people comes first - there has to be a balance.

In summary a conspiracy must not be dismissed simply because it is a conspiracy, it could be sound analysis. And soundness is the benchmark - not conspiracy.

Before I start I return to science. Science is not appropriately sceptical because through analysis I see a pattern that much scepticism is one-way and supports BigPharma (indirectly for funding purposes). However sound science must be the benchmark. Andrew Wakefield's studies on the vaccine link to autism has been scientifically debunked (I trust John Oliver's research as he would lose too much credibility if his researchers were wrong). So to my mind Wakefield's name should be eschewed, and yet Vaccines Revealed touts Wakefield as one of its teams of experts (scroll down). This makes me extremely sceptical of anything that is said about vaccines, and by association about cancer - as the two series appear connected (Ty Bollinger).

There is a human side to all of this - fear. There is a culture and climate of fear that is especially used to gear up support on the right. Amongst the right there is an unspoken understanding of Marxism, the system is fundamentally corrupt, that the economy is built on confidence, and can be toppled through a breaking of that confidence. They will personally lose, so middle-class whites vote for self-protection and conservatism (Republicanism). Of course they turn their back on war and wage-slavery, ignore the repeated revelations concerning the wealthy and offshore accounts (Panama and Paradise), and are unable to give any deep analysis. Right wing populism appeals to that fear, does not have to have a deep analysis so long as fear is enhanced, and must be questioned because that fear benefits the 1%. But it cannot be ignored .

I have determined there is a chronology on these cancer videos, Quest for Cures, Quest for Cures Continues (1 and 2), Truth About (1 and 2) even though there are supposed to be 9 (more?). That is the order I will try to work through, but my benchmark is legitimate scepticism and not scientific rigour so I might not review the lot if it is repetitive.

In the first clip we can hear G Edward Griffin, listen to this. Isn't this simply holistic medicine? Seeking the root cause of the problem and dealing with it? As opposed to cutting, burning or poisoning a symptom? The clip then interviews a mainstream doctor who expertly describes the mainstream view of cancer in line with G Edward Griffin's description. What Griffin is saying has sufficient scientific plausibility to be answered - not dismissed as conspiratorial lunacy? For me dismissal out-of-hand of what is described here condemns mainstream medicine as ignorant - as closed because it is not willing to investigate, but ... BUT there is no formal scientific evidence to satisfactorily support G Edward Griffin; he does say that the "statistics show cancer comes back", that needs investigation. Can G Edward Griffin be faulted on that and other statements? This legitimate doubt is what needs to be remedied - either way, analysis and research based on the consequences of what G Edward Griffin and others say needs to be carried out. But that requires funding, and who controls the funding?

Consider my questions on cancer above, the cancer is not cured if a lump is removed and later comes back. Holistically the underlying conditions of the cause have not been dealt with, so the cure is not a cure. Cut burn and poison might be appropriate, but when? Should more be done such as diet and lifestyle after cut burn and poison? If there are natural treatments (as touted in this series of clips) that have any possible legitimacy, then they should be researched. In all of this I am appealing to science, I am asking that respected scientific methodology be applied in toto as a genuine search for knowledge. G Edward Griffin makes a strong case that I am saying interprets it as not searching, and it fits with an understanding of the power and influence of the 1% as Big Pharma and BigFood.

Perhaps the most telling issue that needs to be examined with regards to cancer is historical change (discussed in the clip here). Science argues that allopathic medical treatments (drugs) have cured disease yet cancer is on the increase. Isn't there a question to be asked scientifically, why is it on the increase? There could be sound reasons for this increase; curing other diseases only leaves degenerative diseases - cancer, diabetes and heart disease. This explanation might be appropriate but then lifestyle changes, stress, lack of exercise and poor diet, could also legitimately explain. Why isn't there an answer to this question?

Then there is an interview with a homeopath Dr Bell (who should be euthanised for his political views

). He describes the way in which medical education has been hijacked by BigPharma through Rockefeller (oil-based patented medicines) and Carnegie Foundation; it should be noted that as a right-winger he attacks the government as FDA rather than attacking the 1% who manipulate government. Place this hijack in context. When do doctors decide on how they will treat cancer? At medical school. Once they are in practice, they do not have the time to research how they are treating patients. Perhaps they attend medical conferences that support their treatment approaches, but they do not have the time to question what they learned in medical college. Why should they? In one sense they shouldn't, but given the control that BigPharma has upon their medical practice there ought to be more healthy scepticism. Listen to this BigPharma sales rep discuss her job. If you control the education and the drugs the doctors prescribe, what else is there?

Dr Bell also describes, in a very Eurocentric manner, the breadth of medicine at the turn of the 20th century as homeopathy, naturopathy and eclectic herbal medicine, being replaced by allopathy (the drugs of BigPharma) he describes as poisons. In my view it is no coincidence that these non-allopathic treatments are attacked by SBM (science-based medicine) - along with acupuncture.

This approach is promoting privatised medicine. Dr Ball became a homeopath - private practice, for most of my life I have sought solutions through privatised medicine - primarily acupuncture. This was not by choice because outside of Botswana, China and Thailand it was very expensive. I would have been much happier if homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine and acupuncture were part of the NHS, and I would have sought solutions there. I don't understand in the US why the 1% would promote private practice because state hospitals are controlled by the finance industry. In the UK however it is different, and support of alternative (natural) treatments would effectively be an attack on the NHS. So it is important to note that this scepticism is contributing to right-wing culture through privatisation, if I understood the US medical culture better I might understand more why there is such abundant funding.

What about this question? Does it have validity? Here is the same question posed with some different details.

This doctor describes an Australian study (University of Sydney) which according to her demonstrates cutting burning and poisoning an already-sick body is not working. Is this scientifically-sound evidence? If so, why is it ignored?

Webster Kehr "5-year cure rate for chemo is 2.1%". Is this understood and accepted? When chemo cure rates are recorded such as described above for Holland, is this 2.1% part of the patient's information? "Most of the major kinds of cancer do not respond to chemotherapy well" Webster Kehr, is this true? Webster Kehr is the founder of the Cancer Tutor promoting alternative treatments so there is bias although scientific studies are quoted - including for the 2.1% figure. It is part of the "Independent Cancer Research Foundation". So their research is supposedly scientific, does mainstream science accept their results? You can find natural alternative treatments through cancer tutor. I knew that Gerson had a clinic in Mexico, when I searched Mexico I found 2 clinics run by Dr Antonio Jiminez. There is an article about the Gerson therapy, maybe Jiminez's Hope4Cancer and Gerson are connected. This possible anomaly concerns me. Cancer Tutor definitely has money, appears professional, but that is not enough.

I am about to give up because I have reached an impasse. I am saying nothing new, and all these people have spent far more time looking into the problem. There is money in "natural treatment" as well as in BigPharma's cancer industry. From what little I know Gerson is well worth $6000 a week - far above my income bracket. Big money. Probably far less than medical insurance payouts but of course insurance will not pay for Gerson. Why is there an impasse? My scepticism demands appropriate research but the will is not there. I want a magic tool that says science and alternative treatments work together to establish a bank of knowledge that is independent verifiable and scientific. I am at an impasse because I conclude this cannot happen, it matters not the effectiveness of treatments nor the scientific evidence already available. In my view the failure to establish this independent scientific research is because of the mainstream, but that is only an opinion. The questions asked in this clip and the scientific evidence they quote is enough to demand that an unbiassed desire for knowledge would be asking the questions I have posed, but the situation has its bias. BigPharma and BigFood, and their control of government.

And of course there is the blind acceptance of what conditioning dishes out in terms of reverence for mainstream science and whatever else in the mainstream backs it up. The world is educated for blindness and people respond that way even when confronted with evidence. They prefer to call people liars rather than examine their own conditioning.