by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.
from CampaignAgainstFraudulentMedicalResearch Website
know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that
the major cancer research organizations are derelict in
their duties to the people who support them."
(Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
Have you ever wondered
why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over
many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever
"just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?
Cancer Is Increasing
Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in
Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United
Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian
By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian
deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is
typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase
in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than
their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is
merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and
thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer.
argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in
younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous
population studies which have linked various life-style factors of
particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are
The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed
"My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be
judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on
the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of
its journal. (3)
Dr. Bailer also says:
"The five year survival
statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They
now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to
diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear
to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has
been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than
More women with mild or benign diseases are being
included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When
government officials point to survival figures and say they are
winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates
A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed
progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950
Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which
account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease,
the report found that the overall death rate had increased
substantially since 1950:
"The main conclusion we draw is that some
35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment
must be judged a qualified failure."
The report further concluded
that "...we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a
shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial
Most Cancer IS
According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer,
"...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and
thus theoretically avoidable." (5)
Environmental causes of cancer
include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal
products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to
sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution,
electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and
But unfortunately, as expressed by medical
historian Hans Ruesch,
"Despite the general recognition that 85 per
cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than
10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given
to environmental causes.
And despite the recognition that the
majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than
1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to
nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on
the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in
Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry
According to Dr. Robert Sharpe,
"... in our culture treating
disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the
U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was
estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the 'market' showing a
steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years.
Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as
the drug industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality, so
many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by
the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)
Desired: A State of No Cure?
In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is
sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction.
For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies,
activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the
investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null (Death by Medicine) concluded that
these institutions had become self-perpetuating organizations whose
survival depended on the state of no cure.
to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the
obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph
over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating
charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally
threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete
the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments
in which so much money, training and equipment is invested.
fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to
alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically
promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged
and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results,
and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this
pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost
Indeed, many people around the world consider
that they have been cured by therapies which were 'blacklisted' by
the major cancer organizations.
Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer
research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back
a cure for cancer?
Author G. Edward Griffin explains,
face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else... [I]t's
obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control
for cancer. It does mean, however, that the
[pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel's medical monopoly has created a
climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth
often is sacrificed to vested interests...
[I]f the money is
coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies,
the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn't
mean somebody blew the whistle and said 'hey, don't research
nutrition!' It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is
a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest."
This point is similarly expressed by Dr.
"Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If
there is no money for the projects they are personally interested
in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from
their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the
granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers
depend on it." (10)
Money Spent on
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is
spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely
condemned as a waste of time and resources.
For instance, consider
the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director
of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the
world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial
Institute for Cancer Research, Buffalo, NY:
"The uselessness of most
of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the
discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human
cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model
systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming
from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars
for animal research.
There is little, if any, factual evidence that
would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results
have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they
have never produced a single substantial advance either in the
prevention or treatment of human cancer.
For instance, practically
all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the
treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather
than in animal studies." (11)
In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed
as "safe" on the basis of animal tests.
As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the
"Their constant consumption
is legalized on the basis of misleading animal experiments...
which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)
Imagine What Could Be Achieved
The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organization, bear
in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which
has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure
and by others, as a complete fraud.
If you would like to make a
difference, inform these organizations that you won't donate to them
until they change their approach to one which is focused on
prevention and study of the human condition.
We have the power to
change things by making their present approach unprofitable.
only through our charitable donations and taxes that these
institutions survive on their present unproductive path.
1. d'Espaignet, E.T.
et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian
Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia
1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1
3. Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as
quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans
and Animals BOTH Suffer, NZAVS, 1993, p.132
4. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing
Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47
5. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47
6. Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS,
Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77
7. Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65
8. as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66
9. Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette)
American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.
10. Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1
No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.
11. Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179
12. Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd
International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain
Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.