Sunday, November 24, 2013

Could 89 Percent of ‘Landmark’ Cancer Research Be Untruthful?


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

  "19 Drug-Free Arthritis Treatment ‘Secrets’ the Big
  Drug Companies Hope and Pray You’ll Never Discover..."

Could 89 Percent of ‘Landmark’ Cancer Research Be Untruthful?

The headline above is not only a question...It is also a statement
that is throughout the internet in various different places and the
conclusion of many researchers.

After reading different research and before my diagnosis appointment
with my doctor, I made my decision to go the alternative approach
for my cancer treatment.

My doctor ignored me when I told him of my decision. He just
kept talking about my upcoming surgery and kemo treatment. The
third time I stated "NO"...He looked at me and said he would no
longer be my doctor because I was unwilling to follow his

He tried to convince me that the alternative approach would not
work. Our conversation ended when I told him I was unwilling to
put myself through the pain and sickness that he, (our medical
profession) recomended.

According to him I had a very short time to live. That was May
of 2007. At this time I have not ever experienced any pain or
sickness from my cancer.

Could 89 Percent of ‘Landmark’ Cancer Research Be Untruthful?

    Findings such as the ones above, which demonstrate the significant
benefits of lifestyle changes like exercise on your physical and mental
health, become all the more important in light of mounting evidence showing
that conventional drug treatment research has been sorely compromised by
industry funding. As discussed in a recent GreenMedInfo article,10 the alleged
groundbreaking results of nearly nine out of 10 cancer studies cannot be
reproduced by any means!

        This means that to an extent, we have based our healthcare and
clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported untruthful results in order
to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations, Eleni Roumeliotou

        Cancer is a major killer in US. The American Cancer Society reports
that in 2012, more than half a million Americans died from cancer, while more
than 1.6 million new cases were diagnosed. Given the seriousness of these
statistics and the necessity of evidence-based medicine, it would make sense
to trust that honest, objective research is tirelessly trying to find the best
cancer therapies out there.

    Alas, this trust in the scientific rigor of medical research appears to
have been misplaced. First of all, nearly three-quarters of all retracted drug
studies are due to falsification of data, meaning it’s not even a matter of
misinterpretation of data; rather the data used to draw conclusions are pure
fiction. Large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings are
published, as the average lag time between publication of the study and the
issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that's if it's ever caught at all.

    Last year, former drug company researcher Glenn Begley also showed that
the vast majority of the "landmark" studies on cancer are unreliable and a
high proportion of those unreliable studies come from respectable university
labs. Begley looked at 53 papers in the world's top journals, and found that
he and a team of scientists could NOT replicate 47 of the 53 published studies
all of which were considered important and valuable for the future of cancer

    Part of the problem, they said, is that scientists often ignore negative
findings in their results that might raise a warning. Instead, they opt for
cherry-picking conclusions in an effort to put their research in a favorable
light. The allegations appeared in the March 28 issue of the prestigious
journal Nature.

        "It was shocking," Begley said. "These are the studies the
pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug
development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5
million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to
reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face

    As if that’s not disturbing enough, Roumeliotou points out that Begley was
not permitted to disclose which 53 cancer studies he evaluated and found to be
without scientific merit. She writes:

        ...when they contacted the original authors and asked for details of
the experiments, they had to sign an agreement that they would not disclose
their findings or sources. This shows that the scientists, who published the
tainted research, were all along, fully aware of the discrepancies of their
articles and criminally conscious of the fact that they were misleading the
medical and public opinion.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

No comments:

Post a Comment