The Causes of Cancer are well-known and so are the Cures

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 7, 2012

It is not uncommon to see essays from so called cancer experts or doctors who privately or through foundations promote the old know-how when talking about cancer, cancer prevention and treatment. But articles that talk about cancer rates and the best methods to prevent and treat this disease are usually filled with half truths and often with plain bold lies. A recent commentary article posted on the New York Times, and written by doctor Susan Love, is a clear example of what the establishment medical industry does in order to keep patients ignorant and to continue the unnecessary search for a cure.

Cancer is not only a completely curable disease, in many cases even in advanced stages, but also an absolutely preventable one. In her essay Ms. Love begins by assessing the decision made by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure group to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which the organization later retracted given the pressure exercised by the eugenics-driven organizationPlanned Parenthood– as well as the pharmaceutical industrial complex. The establishment medical industry co-opted organizations and foundations to protest Susan G. Komen’s decision and raised public awareness about the issue as if the defunding move would heavily impact Planned Parenthood’s ability to continue to carry out its eugenics programs. Planned Parenthood makes $164 million per year from abortions. That of course, was not pointed out by Ms. Love.

She actually went straight into the lies and half truths usually megaphoned by the establishment medical industry and the dying main stream media. She started by saying “we still don’t know what causes breast cancer, therefore we don’t know how to prevent it”. To Ms. Love’s surprise, doctors who treat and attempt to cure cancer through traditional and alternative methods have discovered that all cancers do have a common cause. Cancer is, as the latest study published by the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, has shown, a metabolic malfunction, not a consequence of cellular mutation or bad genetics, as many in the medical establishment tell us. It can be prevented and treated with diet and exercise, (also read thisenzyme therapy as well as with ingestion of dichloroacetate, as the Canadian study shows. What there isn’t right now is a treatment or cure that is equally successful for everyone, which is what the medical establishment wants us to believe. What doesn’t work is the traditional set of treatments -chemotherapy and radiation- which in most cases causes remission for a few years, but causes the cancer to spread and return. Cancer drugs make tumors more aggressive and deadly within 5 to 10 years after the patient is irradiated and poisoned. So, not all cancers are equal, true, but it is absolutely false that we don’t know its origin or how to treat it.

Ms. Love then talks about cancer screening as a tool to control cancer. Although she mentions that screening by itself is not an effective way to prevent cancers, she goes on to say it is the best way there is, therefore implicitly suggesting that women should continue to irradiate their bodies as often as their doctors recommend. She probably has not heard about the monumental number of false positives that causes doctors and patients to even consider surgery in cases when cysts found through the mammograms aren’t even malign tumors. So no Ms. Love, mammograms are not the best thing out there to diagnose or prevent breast cancer.

Ms. Love goes on to tell another lie that was manufactured within the medical establishment: That the HPV vaccine is an awesome way to prevent cancer of the cervix. She doesn’t say it, but perhaps she also believes that boys should be vaccinated against HPV, too. Again, Ms. Love probably is not aware of the fact that HPV does not cause cancer of the cervix, and that healthy women are able to prevent any disease caused by the HPV virus, with few cases of women who experience mild infections, and only a minority -less than 3000 a year- who actually develop cancer of the cervix, but not due to HPV. In fact, neither does Cervarix not Gardasil help prevent cancer of the cervix. In their own studies, pharmaceutical corporations reveal that both vaccines are barely effective in treating 4 of the more than 100 strains of human papillomavirus that exist. Even the Food and Drug Administration’s own papers reject the idea that these two vaccines help to prevent cancer of the cervix. The FDA says the HPV vaccine in women who have human papillomavirus increases the risk of cervical cancer by 44.6%, because this vaccines promote the development of precancerous lesions in the uterus, which eventually leads to cervical cancer. The American Medical Association (AMA) says: “There is significant evidence to indicate that there is no benefit from the vaccine. The disappearance of the virus during periods of 12 months is not related to the use of the vaccine. It is unlikely that vaccination has any significant benefit.” Ms. Love definitely ignores that the current global vaccination policies have been found to be fraudulent at best. Both Cervarix and Gardasil are well recognized for causing 3500 serious side effects which are not acknowledged by the medical establishment despite their proven serious consequences.

At the end of her essay, Ms. Love reinforces her views about the need to “find the causes” instead of “finding the cure”. Of course, the cures for cancer have already been found, and so have the causes. Except that the causes are not a common set of signs or symptoms that are the same on every patient. Each cancer patient has a set of causes that promoted and allowed cancer to appear and grow in him or her. I don’t think she understands that yet despite her college degree. Dear Ms. Love, neither Planned Parenthood nor any other medical organization that swears by the traditional, outdated and inefficient methods to treat and cure cancer actually offer medical care; they offer death care. They don’t treat the symptoms or the disease; they don’t cure. They kill. The only thing that has stopped millions of women and men from finding the cure for cancer is not the lack of that cure, but the ignorance, arrogance and economic interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex to which you belong, voluntarily or not.


Cancer drugs make tumors more aggressive and deadly

by S. L. Baker
Infowars.com
January 19, 2012

When natural health advocates warn against mainstream medicine’s arsenal of weapons used to fight cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, their concerns often revolve around how these therapies can weaken and damage a person’s body in numerous ways. But scientists are finding other reasons to question some of these therapies. It turns out that while chemotherapies may kill or shrink tumors in the short term, they may actually be causing malignancies to grow more deadly in the long term.

For example, Natural News previously reported:

(http://www.naturalnews.com/029042_cancer_cells_chemotherapy.html) that scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis). And now comes news that a little-explored specific cell type, the pericyte, found in what is called themicroenvironmentof a cancerous tumor actually may halt cancer progression and metastasis. And by destroying these cells, some anti-cancer therapies may inadvertently be making cancer more aggressive as well as likely to spread and kill.

A study just published in the January 17 issue of the journalCancer Cellconcludes that anti-angiogenic therapies (which shrink cancer by cutting off tumors’ blood supply) may be killing the body’s natural defense against cancer by destroying pericyte cells that likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis. Pericytes cover blood vessels and support their growth.

For the new research, Raghu Kalluri, MD, PhD, Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), investigated whether targeting pericytes could inhibit tumor growth in the same way that other antiangiogenic cancer drugs do.

Dr. Kalluri and his research team worked with mice genetically engineered to support drug-induced depletion of pericytes in growing tumors. Next, they removed pericytes in implanted mouse breast cancer tumors, decreasing pericyte numbers by 60 percent.

Compared with control animals, there was a 30 percent decrease in the size of cancerous tumors over 25 days. But there was a serious catch to these results. Contrary to conventional mainsteam medical wisdom, the scientists discovered the number of secondary lung tumors in the engineered mice had increased threefold compared to the control mice, indicating that the tumors had metastasized.

How cancer drugs can spread cancer cells

“If you just looked at tumor growth, the results were good,” Dr. Kalluri said in a press statement. “But when you looked at the whole picture, inhibiting tumor vessels was not controlling cancer progression. The cancer was, in fact, spreading. This suggested to us that without supportive pericytes, the vasculature inside the tumor was becoming weak and leaky — even more so than it already is inside most tumors– and this was reducing the flow of oxygen to the tumor.”

Read Full Article…