Bring4th

Awww...what a bummer for the drug companies!

Quote:A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse.

http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-m...z22vN0MWHj

(08-08-2012, 12:29 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Awww...what a bummer for the drug companies!

Quote:A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse.

http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-m...z22vN0MWHj

It's been known for some time now that chemo and radiation are not only ineffective but complicate and exacerbate the condition. Big Pharma loves these treatments because they soak the patient of his money and then kills them - nice, neat package. Just what the doctor ordered.

Yes, modern allopathic medicine is another of my passions. The AMA: American Murder Association.

Actually cancer diseases are very complicated while compare to the other diseases, but today that also became very easy to cure. If we meet the correct specialist, then it will be cure definitely.

I recently bought a family member a green glass plate and uv light (as per Edgar Cayce's recommendation) and he's using it as instructed. Unfortunately he's also on chemo. As his cancer cell count has been slowly rising I'm very interested to see what the uv light/green glass does to his overall health.

(11-27-2012, 01:19 AM)jacrob Wrote: [ -> ]I recently bought a family member a green glass plate and uv light (as per Edgar Cayce's recommendation) and he's using it as instructed. Unfortunately he's also on chemo. As his cancer cell count has been slowly rising I'm very interested to see what the uv light/green glass does to his overall health.

It's hard to say when they're doing chemo too, since the chemo is so poisonous.

Interesting article! I found this in the comments:

Quote:Tim Shannon, ND 112 days ago

For those who are interested, this appears to be the citation for this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22863786
The only SHOCK of this study is in the article. There are numerous studies that show that chemo induces more cancer, nothing new here. This is mostly a sensationalist article to get readers, nothing more. The multibillion dollar cancer industry won't bat an eye, never do when studies come out that show problems with chemo/radiation. In addition, this study cites one type of cancer - prostate. The article makes it appear as if the study talks about ALL chemotherapy and ALL cancers, it doesn't. It's exclusively about prostate cancer and some of the common chemotherapies related to prostate cancer.
Of course, this type of article will bring out the chemo lovers and the chemo haters. But it won't even make a ripple. Don't now what ever really will as long as there is SO much $ to be made by this industry.

So, I went and looked at the actual abstract of the study:

Quote:Nat Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):1359-68. Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B. Sun Y, Campisi J, Higano C, Beer TM, Porter P, Coleman I, True L, Nelson PS.

Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Acquired resistance to anticancer treatments is a substantial barrier to reducing the morbidity and mortality that is attributable to malignant tumors. Components of tissue microenvironments are recognized to profoundly influence cellular phenotypes, including susceptibilities to toxic insults. Using a genome-wide analysis of transcriptional responses to genotoxic stress induced by cancer therapeutics, we identified a spectrum of secreted proteins derived from the tumor microenvironment that includes the Wnt family member wingless-type MMTV integration site family member 16B (WNT16B). We determined that WNT16B expression is regulated by nuclear factor of κ light polypeptide gene enhancer in B cells 1 (NF-κB) after DNA damage and subsequently signals in a paracrine manner to activate the canonical Wnt program in tumor cells. The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression. These results delineate a mechanism by which genotoxic therapies given in a cyclical manner can enhance subsequent treatment resistance through cell nonautonomous effects that are contributed by the tumor microenvironment.

What they are talking about here is an already existing tumor gaining resistance to the chemo. Kind of like when a microbial colony gains resistance to an antibiotic.

I would mostly agree with the commenter. Especially in pointing out that all cancers are not the same. And neither are all forms of chemo the same.

The article is overblown. It borders on misinformation. I think this guy has been reading too much Mike Adams, The Health Ranger!

But that isn't to deny that there are many crackpots in the mainstream cancer field. And yes, even some frauds.

Quote: promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.

Quote:nonautonomous

Sounds like they piss off something intelligent.

(11-27-2012, 11:08 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.

Quote:nonautonomous

Sounds like they piss off something intelligent.

Tumors are alive, therefore they utilize intelligent energy.

Is that an answer to anything?


Perhaps someday you will find the metaphysical component and erase some of your textbook belief. It does not help humanity to pick up the same shovel and dig the same pit that has already been established.

You have already stated your opinion of "control" as being an sts trait. Yet "killing" is still acceptable as you have yet to get off the fence. No sense in that at all, as killing is only control coupled with fear.

(11-29-2012, 11:45 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps someday you will find the metaphysical component and erase some of your textbook belief. It does not help humanity to pick up the same shovel and dig the same pit that has already been established.

You have already stated your opinion of "control" as being an sts trait. Yet "killing" is still acceptable as you have yet to get off the fence. No sense in that at all, as killing is only control coupled with fear.

How do you suppose the body naturally rids itself of cancerous cells, if not by "killing" them?

This is where our perceptions are different. I work in the metaphysical. As such, i am aware of karmic interactions, and that i am not allowed to "kill". By "controlling" microorganisms in my body i am allowed to command them, but not destroy them. All neutralizing or deactivations are done by the innate body by way of my signalling to the metaphysical. "My will be done". This does not work with belief, it works within awareness.

Killing is a taught belief. Useless for the future.

(11-30-2012, 12:35 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]This is where our perceptions are different. I work in the metaphysical. As such, i am aware of karmic interactions, and that i am not allowed to "kill".

If you are speaking of magical work, then I would hope you would neither seek to "kill" nor in any way bring harm to another, or cause harm to be attracted to them.

Quote:By "controlling" microorganisms in my body i am allowed to command them, but not destroy them.

What do you command them to do?

Quote:All neutralizing or deactivations are done by the innate body by way of my signalling to the metaphysical.

Yes, the body is what neutralizes the cancerous cells. There are a number of ways it may do this. One way is to signal the cancer cell to initiate programmed self-death. Another way would be to inject free radicals into the cancer cell, causing it to die.

Working in the metaphysical, I would assume you would never want to issue a direct command for death or harm of any kind.

Quote:"My will be done". This does not work with belief, it works within awareness.

I'm not quite sure what sort of conception you have about the work I do, but it is entirely focused on assisting the body to heal itself by natural means. Yes, these are primarily physical means in contrast to metaphysical. But I don't prescribe drugs, least of all chemotherapy.

However, there are certain herbs I might recommend that are harmful to certain microbes. These tend to be the ones that contribute to disease in the body.

Quote:Killing is a taught belief. Useless for the future.

What do you mean by that? That killing doesn't really exist?

Quote:What do you command them to do?

Cause no harm.

Quote:What do you mean by that? That killing doesn't really exist?

A cancerous cell has lost its self control, its instruction. It is possible to re-instruct it.

The belief in the need to kill anything is belief. You can ask that those on the other side of the veil take care of these matters in the proper way. When you take matters into your hands and kill, it is like blood on your hands.

Some understand this, and move through this experience quicker with a lot less suffering, getting a heck of a lot more done.

Most that face this concept scoff at it, planting the seeds for later catalyst. In fact that is one of my services is planting these seeds LoL! They tend to pop up and activate a year or more down the road. Even made a new friend in this way.

Awareness is needed, then acknowledgement of the system. By ignoring the system many simply cut themself free of guidance.

--------------
The common theme is to tear down the body by way of ingestion, then to try and kill or cut out those portions of the body that rise up to stop your warfare against it.

Looking at it from my perspective, it is a way to kill yourself in small portions at a time. Whether it be the first damage, or the secondary treatment damage.

In the case of caring for one's own health, it is essential to practice a vitality-based lifestyle, one based on increasing your health, rather than a recovery-based existence that seeks to treat individual symptoms. People who are recovery-based will constantly be looking at past dis-ease in their physical forms. They will be searching to prevent some illness from reoccuring. This is a type of fear.

Quote:The belief in the need to kill anything is belief. You can ask that those on the other side of the veil take care of these matters in the proper way. When you take matters into your hands and kill, it is like blood on your hands.

Loving a tumor away would definitely be a better approach than killing it! I was just referring to the fact that immune cells kill cancer cells. It is natural for them to do this. What we are doing on a conscious level is different.

Quote:Most that face this concept scoff at it, planting the seeds for later catalyst.

At the idea that cancer could be cured metaphysically? No doubt some do. But a lot of people embrace the concept as well. The establishment just doesn't tell us too many stories about them in the news.

Also- I think it is tough for people to consider metaphysical causes of cancer, in general. Plus, there is a tendency to rebel at the thought that one might have brought cancer upon themselves- rather than it being a "random" thing that occurs.

Quote:In fact that is one of my services is planting these seeds LoL!

Which seeds?

Quote:Even made a new friend in this way.

How do you mean?

Quote:The common theme is to tear down the body by way of ingestion, then to try and kill or cut out those portions of the body that rise up to stop your warfare against it.

Yes. That is a theme of Western medicine in general. For example, almost every medicinal drug inhibits a biochemical pathway. In contrast, diet and supplements are aimed at promoting biochemical pathways. In particular, detox pathways.

Quote:In the case of caring for one's own health, it is essential to practice a vitality-based lifestyle, one based on increasing your health, rather than a recovery-based existence that seeks to treat individual symptoms. People who are recovery-based will constantly be looking at past dis-ease in their physical forms. They will be searching to prevent some illness from reoccuring. This is a type of fear.

Precisely. I would agree. But this is another one of those 6000 year-old debates... the existence of a vital life force. Actually, that's why many MDs consider naturopathic doctors quacks... because we claim that this life force exists.

Western medicine acknowledges only the body... the form. Therefore, they conclude that any process which appears to us as "life" is merely a byproduct of biochemical pathways in the body, instead of a metaphysical force that can direct those pathways, and even act independently of them... hence "miraculous" recoveries.

whether metaphysical or physical i would think that strengthening the immune system would be beneficial to the healing. plenty of green foods but no chlorella as that stimulates tissue growth. lots of barley grass. i have always thought chemo was insane. u are weakening the immune system when u should be strengthening it. of course if u look at it our life styles are cancerous with all the carcinogens in the enviorment, the nuclear power plants etc. cancer is most certainly complex , i personally do not believe in chemo . the whole key i think is to try and have a health giving diet and mind set to prevent this disease. its complex thats for sure.

(12-01-2012, 09:22 AM)norral Wrote: [ -> ]whether metaphysical or physical i would think that strengthening the immune system would be beneficial to the healing.

The immune system is where the physical meets the metaphysical. It is the place where "identity" is determined on the physical level. You are right, it can be very important. But it's not about strengthening only. Often times, other branches of the immune system are overactive and need to be calmed down. It is often a question of resources, and in a resource-depleted environment, the immune system is forced to choose between addressing the "immediate threat" or looking to the long-term.

That's one reason why nutrition is so important. Balanced nutrition provides enough resources to the immune system so that it can attend to both short-term and long-term considerations of the body.

There is also the angle of carcinogenic toxins coming into the body. And yes it is important to consider these and try to minimize them. But at the end of the day simply being physical is going to cause us to be in contact with carcinogenic substances in our environment.

yeah allergies need to chill the puck out

(12-01-2012, 06:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]The immune system is where the physical meets the metaphysical.

Do academics describe the immune system center of command as the thymus? Which happens to be the rose chakra? Right at the heart chakra? One of the "sacred" glands?

Coincidentally green foods boost the green ray. picking up on enough of the coincidences can form a bigger picture. The Rosicrucians describe the thymus as well, and the timing of the changes, which sort of cioncides with "other stories" of old as well.

(12-01-2012, 11:10 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Do academics describe the immune system center of command as the thymus?

Not entirely. Academia would view the immune system as a decentralized system. The thymus is where T-cells are formed... these are actually the ones which "kill" microbes and, to a degree, cancer cells. These T-cells are precisely the ones which identify cells as self or not-self.

When a T-cell identifies another cell as "not-self", they attach to it and inject free radicals into the "invading" cell. They may also secrete chemical messengers to recruit more specialized immune cells. For example, in the case of cancer cells, there are what are known are "Natural Killer" cells, or NK cells. These have even more "killing" ability than the T-cells.

The strange thing is that it appears the thymus becomes non-functional and even regresses in many people as we age. Academia says this is "normal" but I don't buy it. Might be "normal" in the sense that it is common... but I don't think it is natural.

Perhaps this is connected with a failure to activate the rose chakra?

Quote:Coincidentally green foods boost the green ray. picking up on enough of the coincidences can form a bigger picture.

Yes. I don't think it is any coincidence that the primary wavelength of physical light driving the manifestation of life on earth is around 500nm. But this is actually blue-green.

Quote:The Rosicrucians describe the thymus as well, and the timing of the changes, which sort of cioncides with "other stories" of old as well.

The "Rosy Cross."

More on the chemo scam:

Quote:Forward-thinking Cancer Experts Suggest Abandoning Chemotherapy, Radiation, and Surgery To Treat Cancer

Three recent studies published in the journals Nature and Science shed new light on why chemotherapy, a common conventional treatment for cancer, is typically a complete failure at permanently eradicating cancer.
Based on numerous assessments of how cancer cells multiply and spread, researchers from numerous countries have confirmed that cancer tumors generate their own stem cells, which in turn feed the re-growth of new tumors after earlier ones have been eliminated.

...

What they discovered was that, although chemotherapy appeared in many cases to successfully kill tumor cells and temporarily stop the growth and spread of cancer, the treatment ultimately failed to prevent new tumors from forming. And the culprit, it turns out, was cancer stem cells that persisted long after chemotherapy, which quietly prompted the re-growth of new tumors later down the road.

,,,

"Traditional therapies like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation do not destroy the small number of cells driving the cancer's growth," says UM's Comprehensive Cancer Center. "Instead of trying to kill all the cells in a tumor with chemotherapy or radiation, we believe it would be more effective to use treatments targeted directly at these so-called cancer stem cells. If the stem cells were eliminated, the cancer would be unable to grow and spread to other locations in the body."

Alternative cancer therapies like the Gerson therapy (www.gerson.org) and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's antineoplastons (www.burzynskiclinic.com), for instance, are already successfully treating cancers in this way.

But because of censorship issues and medical tyranny, these treatments are still not widely accepted, and are actually considered to be fraudulent by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and virtually all state and federal medical boards in the US.

http://www.foodmatters.tv/articles-1/why...oesnt-work

(12-05-2012, 03:02 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]which quietly prompted the re-growth of new tumors later down the road.

I looked up the side effects of a pill for liver treatment that a lady was taking. A listed side effect was at least one of two types of cancer at about the two year mark. It described getting cancer even if you had quit taking the script. How weird is that..........sounds like an activator.

(12-05-2012, 03:15 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I looked up the side effects of a pill for liver treatment that a lady was taking. A listed side effect was at least one of two types of cancer at about the two year mark. It described getting cancer even if you had quit taking the script. How weird is that..........sounds like an activator.

What's beyond weird - mind-blowing actually - is that people take that s***, even knowing the risks!

I know a man who got hepatitis from using needles 30 years ago. They told him the treatment for hepatitis would cause liver cancer. He got the treatment anyway (even though there are natural alternatives). Sure enough, 2 years later he got liver cancer right on schedule, and died.

It's just tragic that people blindly do what the docs tell them. Unbelievable! I mean, doesn't it even register a teeny bit when they read the list of common side effects? Cancer...coma...erections lasting more than 4 hours...sudden DEATH.

(12-05-2012, 03:28 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I know a man who got hepatitis from using needles 30 years ago. They told him the treatment for hepatitis would cause liver cancer. He got the treatment anyway (even though there are natural alternatives). Sure enough, 2 years later he got liver cancer right on schedule, and died.

The pill was for liver treatment. She had fatty deposits or something like that and rather than changing diet the doc told her she would need a liver transplant if she did not take the pill. She told me she would rather have the cancer than the transplant.

(12-05-2012, 11:05 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]The pill was for liver treatment. She had fatty deposits or something like that and rather than changing diet the doc told her she would need a liver transplant if she did not take the pill. She told me she would rather have the cancer than the transplant.

What makes it even more tragic is that the liver is so easily cleansed and regenerated!

(11-27-2012, 10:57 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting article! I found this in the comments:

Quote:Tim Shannon, ND 112 days ago

For those who are interested, this appears to be the citation for this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22863786
The only SHOCK of this study is in the article. There are numerous studies that show that chemo induces more cancer, nothing new here. This is mostly a sensationalist article to get readers, nothing more. The multibillion dollar cancer industry won't bat an eye, never do when studies come out that show problems with chemo/radiation. In addition, this study cites one type of cancer - prostate. The article makes it appear as if the study talks about ALL chemotherapy and ALL cancers, it doesn't. It's exclusively about prostate cancer and some of the common chemotherapies related to prostate cancer.
Of course, this type of article will bring out the chemo lovers and the chemo haters. But it won't even make a ripple. Don't now what ever really will as long as there is SO much $ to be made by this industry.

So, I went and looked at the actual abstract of the study:

Quote:Nat Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):1359-68. Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B. Sun Y, Campisi J, Higano C, Beer TM, Porter P, Coleman I, True L, Nelson PS.

Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Acquired resistance to anticancer treatments is a substantial barrier to reducing the morbidity and mortality that is attributable to malignant tumors. Components of tissue microenvironments are recognized to profoundly influence cellular phenotypes, including susceptibilities to toxic insults. Using a genome-wide analysis of transcriptional responses to genotoxic stress induced by cancer therapeutics, we identified a spectrum of secreted proteins derived from the tumor microenvironment that includes the Wnt family member wingless-type MMTV integration site family member 16B (WNT16B). We determined that WNT16B expression is regulated by nuclear factor of κ light polypeptide gene enhancer in B cells 1 (NF-κB) after DNA damage and subsequently signals in a paracrine manner to activate the canonical Wnt program in tumor cells. The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression. These results delineate a mechanism by which genotoxic therapies given in a cyclical manner can enhance subsequent treatment resistance through cell nonautonomous effects that are contributed by the tumor microenvironment.

What they are talking about here is an already existing tumor gaining resistance to the chemo. Kind of like when a microbial colony gains resistance to an antibiotic.

I would mostly agree with the commenter. Especially in pointing out that all cancers are not the same. And neither are all forms of chemo the same.

The article is overblown. It borders on misinformation. I think this guy has been reading too much Mike Adams, The Health Ranger!

But that isn't to deny that there are many crackpots in the mainstream cancer field. And yes, even some frauds.

I like you analysis, its very rational and balanced.

I had a friend who died of prostrate cancer 2 years ago. He still looked ok and was functioning normally until he started chemo. Then he rapidly degenerated and died. I wonder how much longer he would have lived if he had not taken the chemo "treatments".
I could write much more about the cancer industry, but it makes me too angry. so I'll leave it at that for now.

Anger does not make sense when you understand that it was the choice of the individual to not educate themselves.

(12-14-2012, 02:14 PM)peelstreetguy Wrote: [ -> ]I had a friend who died of prostrate cancer 2 years ago. He still looked ok and was functioning normally until he started chemo. Then he rapidly degenerated and died. I wonder how much longer he would have lived if he had not taken the chemo "treatments".
I could write much more about the cancer industry, but it makes me too angry. so I'll leave it at that for now.

I think we all know lots of people like that. We can only wonder how many of them would still be alive if they hadn't gone in for that 'routine' mammogram or other cancer screening...and hadn't gotten the 'treatment.'

---

(12-14-2012, 06:40 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Anger does not make sense when you understand that it was the choice of the individual to not educate themselves.

It's amazing that so many people still don't even know that there even is an education to be had! They just obliviously, blindly follow the doctors' recommendations. It was understandable in decades past, but now, with the internet, it's hard to believe people haven't heard about the chemo scam...or that there are so many effective, non-toxic alternatives.

So I guess you're right...it must be their choice...whether consciously or unconsciously, they are choosing it on some level.

(12-14-2012, 02:14 PM)peelstreetguy Wrote: [ -> ]I had a friend who died of prostrate cancer 2 years ago. He still looked ok and was functioning normally until he started chemo. Then he rapidly degenerated and died. I wonder how much longer he would have lived if he had not taken the chemo "treatments".
I could write much more about the cancer industry, but it makes me too angry. so I'll leave it at that for now.

The cancer industry is enough to make anyone tear their hair out. The amount of needless pain and suffering and death caused by these ghouls is more than one can take...:@ Most wars do not take the toll on human life that the cancer quacks take.... The sooner people wake up to this genocidal scam, the better.

.

The Secret History Of The War On Cancer

Dr. Ben Kim, Guest Writer
Waking Times

For many years, I have explained to questioning family members and friends why I cannot support conventional cancer-fighting fundraising campaigns.

I am not completely against conventional medical treatment options for different types of cancer. For example, for a good number of people that I have worked with over the past several years, I have fully supported and encouraged surgical excision of malignant tumours. My wariness of the mainstream cancer-fighting industry pertains to what I believe is excessive and often times inappropriate use of chemotherapy and radiation, as well as the lack of attention that is given to relevant environmental and personal lifestyle factors.

At long last, a devastating and truly noteworthy book on this topic has been published. It’s called The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.

I am grateful to have the permission of Andrew Nikiforuk, a well known Canadian journalist, to share his helpful review of Dr. Davis’ book.

***

Andrew Nikiforuk’s Review of The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.

In 1936, the world’s cancer experts assembled in Brussels to talk shop. The gathering heard a lot about workshop hazards and environmental toxins. A British scientist, who had studied identical twins, argued that cancer wasn’t inherited, but mostly the product of early chemical exposures in life. A meticulous Argentine showed how sunlight combined with hydrocarbons could sprout tumours on rats. Others explained how regular exposure to the hormone estrogen prompted male rodents to grow unseemly breasts. Everyone agreed that arsenic and benzene were workplace killers, too.

Since then, the cancer establishment has retreated from the truth faster than Canada’s commitment to a greener country. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases quickly degenerated into a single-minded focus on treatments after the Second World War, argues Devra Davis, one of North America’s sharpest epidemiologists (her previous book, When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution, was a finalist for the National Book Award).

In the process, industry and its propaganda hit men have used every opportunity to discredit, dismiss or disparage information on cancer hazards in the workplace or at home. So let me warn comfortable readers here and now. This courageous and altogether horrible book is about as unsettling as it can get. It painstakingly documents such a persistently foul pattern of deceit and denial that I often wanted to throw it against a wall and scream.

Furthermore, Davis’s hair-raising investigation – in what is easily the most important science book of the year – will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns. And if you have lost a relative or friend to a malignant tumour (odds are you have), Davis will make you weep again, knowing that fraud and outright criminal neglect have turned a 40-year-long medical war into a questionable $70-billion charade.

Even Davis can’t hide her own disbelief at times: “Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer.” She then diligently documents, for example, how some of the world’s most prominent cancer researchers, such as the late Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who was instrumental in linking smoking to health problems, secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.

read more:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/12/12/th...on-cancer/