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.


Mammograms: The Tool of Choice to Recruit New Cancer Patients

NaturalNews.com
October 18, 2011

Mammograms have become the tool of choice for the cancer industry to recruit new cancer patients..

According to mainstream medicine, mammograms are the key to surviving breast cancer because they supposedly catch the disease early for quick treatment. What this advice invariably leaves out is evidence that exposure to the radiation used in the tests may actually cause breast cancer in some women.

For example, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) concluded annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease.

Now there’s another reason to be concerned about the push for women to have yearly mammograms. In a new study by University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) research shows that among women who receive a decade of annual mammograms, more than half of those women will be called and told the gut-wrenching news that their tests are positive when they are actually cancer-free. The victims of false-positive results — not a malignancy — are then subjected to more tests. In fact, one in twelve of these women will undergo invasive, potentially breast-scarring biopsy surgery.

“This study provides accurate estimates of the risk of a false-positive mammography and breast biopsy for women undergoing repeat mammography in community practice, and so provides important information about the potential harms of undergoing regular mammography,” states Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. Karla is also the co-author of the study, which was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. false-positive mammography

False-positive mammogram results are rampant

The research, led by Group Health Research Institute of Seattle for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, investigated false-positives in mammography by studying the records of approximately 170,000 women between the ages of 40 and 59 from seven regions around the United States. Almost 4,500 of these research subjects were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.

The study found that women who started having mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 were far more likely to have false-positive findings that resulted in more expensive and needless medical tests, including biopsies.

Just by changing breast screening from every year to every other year, the researchers documented that a woman’s risk of having a false-positive finding dropped from 61 percent to 42 percent (about a third) over the course of ten years. What’s more, they found that if radiologists would simply review a patient’s previous mammograms it “may halve the odds of a false-positive recall.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines now recommend biennial mammograms starting at age 50 and continuing until age 74. However, many doctors still recommend annual mammograms, often beginning at age 40.

The new study concluded that after a decade of yearly screening, a majority of women will receive at least one false-positive result. Out of these, 7 to 9 percent will face having a biopsy and the risks that involves — from anesthesia complications to scarring to infection — although these women are, in fact, cancer-free.

And what about the argument that yearly mammograms are needed to catch cancer early enough to cure? The researchers found that women screened every two years were not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer.

“We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular mammograms over the course of many years,” study leader Rebecca Hubbard, PhD, an assistant investigator at Group Health Research Institute, explained in the media statement. “We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they’ll feel less anxiety if – or when – they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news

http://www.annals.org/

http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

Pregnant Women Being Dosed with Chemotherapy

by Christina Luisa
NaturalNews.com
August 24, 2011

In the world of medicine, the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs is widely known. They make your hair fall out, after all, and that’s on top of the muscle wasting, vomiting and overall health deterioration that chemo drugs admittedly produce. But now the insanity has reached a new low with doctors routinely prescribing chemotherapy drugs to pregnant women!

When a woman becomes pregnant, she is told to avoid alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, sushi and other conceivable risks to the fetus. Almost every single medication and supplement has warnings that pregnant women should consult a doctor before use.

The utmost of concern is taken to ensure the protection of the unborn child. So does it seem reasonable that researchers claim that exposing pregnant women to chemotherapy (a deadly treatment that kills living cells) does not APPEAR to affect the fetus?

Though still fairly rare (the rate of pregnancy associated cancer is about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies), the incidence of pregnancy associated breast cancer is quickly on the rise.

It is becoming more common that pregnant women with breast cancer or other forms of cancer are being treated with chemotherapy despite the potential danger this is to the life growing inside of them. Doctors have even told pregnant patients they will die within a short period of time if they don’t get chemotherapy, without informing them of more natural and safe options for treating their disease.

New data from researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center says that pregnant women treated for breast cancer supposedly do at least as well as non-pregnant women.

These results contradict earlier studies showing that outcomes were worse for pregnant women treated for breast cancer. Many doctors in the past have also recommended abortion, advising that chemotherapy could cause birth defects.

In a German study examining outcomes among 122 pregnant breast cancer patients, researchers concluded that pregnant patients can often be treated as aggressively as non-pregnant patients, with little evidence of ill effects to their babies.

These findings are said to prove that pregnant women who have breast cancer can be treated successfully without harming their babies. Abortion, the only other option that seems to be prevalently considered in cases of cancer during pregnancy is unnecessary.

Experts admit to being unsure about what is behind the new statistics but are apparently assuming the only important fact from the new research findings is the revelation that women treated while pregnant “do well.”

One more reason not to trust oncologists

Even if cancer is detected in early pregnancy, women are being advised that chemo is completely okay if it is put off until the second trimester, in order to minimize the risk of birth defects.

Studies have shown that the birth defect rate is as high as 20% when chemotherapy is given in the first trimester, but that this rate drops to around 1.3% when chemotherapy is given later in the pregnancy. This percentage is said to be on par with the national average.

Chemotherapy given after the first trimester “does not usually harm the fetus but may cause early labor and low birth weight.” Putting off chemo until the later trimesters is supposedly good reasoning because the first trimester is the most vulnerable period of a pregnancy, when vital organs are still forming.

However, what makes doctors and researchers think that this fact means the rest of the pregnancy does not also require extreme caution, especially when it comes to lethal drugs in large doses?

Pregnant patients are also recommended to receive the same drugs as non-pregnant patients in the same proportional doses according to weight. Chemotherapy treated patients usually get a combination of three drugs — fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide. However, it is clearly stated on Drugs.com that Doxorubicin can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

This type of barbaric cancer treatment and the potent drug regimen during pregnancy carries the possibility of having disastrous effects in many cases. How could this amount and form of toxicity possibly not have some sort of significant harm on the vulnerable cells developing into a tiny human within a mother’s womb?

Instead of referring pregnant women to natural cancer treatments that are entirely safe for their unborn children, oncologists are pushing them toward the “cure-all” of the corrupt cancer industry chemo. This means more money for them, but what about the children that will likely suffer due to the powerfully toxic treatments they were exposed to while in their mothers womb?

Questionable (uncertain) claims

It is being claimed by researchers, scientists, and doctors that chemotherapy has supposedly no detrimental effect on the fetus and that there is no increased risk of congenital defects in children who are exposed to chemotherapy during pregnancy.

The reasoning used for this is that the placenta acts “as a filter” for most of the products researched and “protects the fetus against the damaging effects of chemotherapy.”

New research is stating that some medications barely penetrate the placenta, while in cases of other drugs the same concentration is found in both the mother and fetus. Does this sound like convincing enough evidence that the fetus is protected from the harmful effects of chemo?

An article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology also claims chemotherapy administered to pregnant women during second or third trimesters for the treatment of breast cancer APPEARS safe for both the fetus and mother.

In fact, many of the articles published on similar research studies on chemotherapy during pregnancy claim that the dangerous treatment APPEARS safe for unborn children. This wording certainly sounds confident and sound.

Although it has been clinically proven chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause changes in germ cell DNA, most such changes are claimed to “not be viable, yielding only a slightly increased risk of birth defects.” Only a slightly increased risk? Really? Even a New York Times article clearly stated that “Contradictions abound about just how chemotherapy affects babies in utero.”

The same article mentions how the FDA has established 5 categories for the use of drugs during pregnancy, with category A the only unequivocally safe one. Most chemotherapeutic agents fall into category D, meaning there is clear evidence of risk to the fetus.

The study that started it all

In 1973, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City named Dr. Agustin Aviles saw his first pregnant patient with leukemia. This woman became the catalyst for his revolutionary study on the effects of chemo while pregnant and the first of 84 patients who received chemotherapy during pregnancy between 1973 and 2003 (58 of them during the first trimester).

All 84 had acute leukemia, advanced Hodgkin’s or malignant lymphoma and were told by doctors that putting off chemotherapy for even a few days could kill both them and the unborn children in their wombs.

Among all 84 cases in his study, every fetus survived and 5.8% of them had birth defects — most of which were reported to be supposedly minor. In a follow-up study, Aviles examined 43 children born to mothers who received chemo from 1970 to 1986.

The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 19 at the time of his assessment and all were recorded to have normal physical, neurological and psychological development. Because of this study and other more recent ones, doctors have been telling patients they don’t have to make a choice between their lives and the life of their baby.

Although Aviles found that only 5.8 % of the babies of mothers who had undergone chemo in the first trimester were born with defects, other studies have found defects in the 14 to 19 % range when chemo is given in the first trimester. Even during the second and third trimesters, chemo is not risk free. Some studies clearly indicate that chemotherapy increases the risk of stillbirth, low birth weight and retardation.

Pregnant chemo patients are taking a potentially dangerous gamble

Most of the problems described in the babies exposed to chemotherapy in this minor study were said by a doctor to not be related to the treatment, but were “most probably due to other circumstances.” These circumstances were not specified, however.

Some of the problems recorded in the study included: alopecia, trisomia 18 (a chromosomal disorder which caused a baby to die one week after birth), necrotic enterocolitis (a severe bacterial infection of the intestine which caused a baby to die three weeks after birth), sepsis (blood infection), neutropenia (low white blood cell count) and anaemia. Few studies have followed the long-term development of children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy.

Although growing numbers of doctors are recommending chemo as an option for pregnant women, many of these women are still refusing treatment unless they abort their fetus first. However, some women have stated that being pregnant increases their will to survive after being diagnosed.

This is a decision that clearly carries a lot of weight in many different ways, and the only person who should be responsible for deciding what is best for the baby is the mother carrying its life in her body.

Article that talks about risks of chemo during pregnancy: http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/…