What we need, the scientists tell us, are numerous double-blind studies, clinical trials, peer reviews, charts, statistics and publication in medical journals in order to establish the veracity of any particular treatment. The scientist bases his argument on the fact that double blind studies are more reliable than first person testimony because his results are reproducable by other scientists at any laboratory throughout the world. The theory holds that experiment "A" is performed in New York and produces "A+B= C" results. If experiment "A" is performed in Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Hong Kong etc the scientists should produce the same results as the experiment performed in New York, as long as they strictly adhere to the protocols of the experiment.
I will now discuss the many large flaws that exist with double-blind studies and clinical trials associated with cancer research in establishing the truth, and the importance of anecdotal evidence.
1. Firstly, clinical drug trials are far more difficult to reproduce than mechanical experiments. Humans have different reactions to drugs, to dosages, different metabolisms. A double blind study is one in which neither the doctor nor the patient knows who is getting the drug or who is getting the placebo (fake pill). The problem with chemotherapy double blind studies is that everyone knows who is receiving the drug because of the horrendous side effects of chemotherapy. Therefore the whole point of it is lost.
In several cases cancer drug trials are not verified, but contradicted,� by other studies in different parts of the world. Oftentimes these contradictory results are not reported or are dimissed as not accurate. A perfect example is the recent supposed chemoprevention drug Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is supposed to prevent woman from getting breast cancer. An NCI study claimed a 45% decrease in breast cancer for some woman when treated with Tamoxifen. Smaller studies in Italy and England found that there was no benefit from Tamoxifen.
2. Scientists tell us a persons word is of little use but they want us to believe their word.� They want us to believe that they have run the drug trials honestly and objectively. The major problem with this is that there is a huge monetary incentive from the pharmaceutical company for doctors to manipulate drug� trials and there have been several instances where they have distorted data. Scientists are just as open to corruption as anybody else.�
The Tamoxifen trials are again a perfect case in point. A surgeon named Bernard Fisher was the main advocate for testing Tamoxifen as a preventative.� He began testing in the early 1980's using tax-payer funded NSABP.
The excerpt below is taken from a lengthy article by Life Extension magazine in May 1999 about Tamoxifen;
"In 1990, it was discovered that a doctor participating in NSABP trials had falsified data for 99 people enrolled in 14 breast cancer studies that preceded the prevention trials. Fisher was accused of not reporting the falsification, then using the data in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In 1993, it was discovered that secretaries in charge of enrolling women at a hospital participating in the breast cancer prevention trial had manufactured data..."
This is the inherent major flaw with the supposed exacting accuracy of double-blind studies. Cancer clinical trials and double blind studies are extremely costly for drug companies, often running into many millions of dollars. The scientists are under pressure to come up with the "right" results for the drug companies, otherwise they will go to another drug testing facility. There is a large monetary incentive for doctors and scant chance of getting caught.� That is why I have little faith in the integrity of these trials. Too much money is on the line and fraud has been proven in several over the last forty years. We don't know which trials are rigged and which are honest, so they all are tainted.
3. The National cancer Institute hands out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money each year. A cancer cure would mean an end to the grant money trough for the tens of thousands of scientists who make a living from it. Thousands of scientists make a very good living from these expensive and very time consuming clinical trials.
As author Barry Lynes says in "The Cancer Cure That Worked" pg 126;
"It took me years to realize that the people in control of the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple , quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis, peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which serves only those "inside" who are playing the great, lucrative "expert" game."
Please
click here and spread the word
by emailing people a link to my website.
Please help make a difference and inform people about the Cancer Racket.
Three children denied the best treatment
"A picture paints a thousand words."
Post a comment, criticism, praise, ideas etc. on my message board . (My message board is hosted by another website. In order to save you the bother of going to a totally different website, clicking will open another web-browser on your computer showing the message board. When you have posted a message, simply close the new web-browser window. There are also some pop-up ads that have nothing to do with me, just close them. To quickly place a new message, click on "General Board", then click on "New Thread." Fill out the "Subject" and put in any "Name". There are many clever functions available that you are probably already familiar with. If not, experiment. NO PROFANITY OR SPAMMING OF ANY KIND. I look forward to chatting with you there. Gavin.)