 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / November 2007How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives > http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm > > How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful > Alternatives What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company to sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the link called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted. Your post is a complete waste of electrons. >> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the link > called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted. Just like the non-effective use of "accepted" treatments. What's the matter Jeff? Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"? > Your post is a complete waste of electrons. >>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted. > Just like the non-effective use of "accepted" treatments. "Non-effective use?" Please tell that to the 50% of the people get cancer and survive it. Or the 75% or so of the kids who get cancer and are cured. > What's the matter > Jeff? The problem is that people waste their money on these books and products. More importantly, the people delay effective treatment and, instead, get ineffective treatment. > Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the > worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"? I don't own any individual shares of stock of drug companies or have any options or other financial arrangements with drug companies. Nor do I have any vested interest with any drug company or get money from any drug company in any way. Nor do I have any financial interest in any hospital. So I have no conflict of interest with any drug company or hospital. So the answer to your underhanded question is NO. Jeff <...> >>>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Non-effective use?" Please tell that to the 50% of the people get cancer > and survive it. Or the 75% or so of the kids who get cancer and are cured. How about you prove this? >> What's the matter Jeff? > > The problem is that people waste their money on these books and products. Which tell the truth. http://www.altcancer.com/lysis.htm "Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In 1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a bunch of sh.t.' "In 1953, a United States Senate Investigation reported that a conspiracy existed to suppress effective cancer treatments. The Senator in charge of the investigation conveniently died. The investigation was halted. It was neither the first nor the last of a number of strange deaths involving people in positions to do damage to those running the nation's cancer program. "In 1964, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spent millions of dollars to stop an alternative cancer treatment which had cured hundreds, if not thousands, of cancer patients according to documented records. It was later disclosed that the FDA had falsified the testimony of witnesses. The FDA lost the court case because the jury found the defendants innocent and recommended that the substance be objectively evaluated. It never was. Instead, it was totally suppressed. "In the early 1960's, two New York City doctors, one associated with the leading cancer center in America and the other the medical director of a Brooklyn hospital, decided to inject live cancer cells into 22 unknowing patients. When they were discovered, Dr. Chester M. Southam of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. E.E. Mandel of the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital of Brooklyn were put on "probation" for a year. The three physicians who "blew the whistle" on Dr. Southam and Dr. Mandel were dismissed. "For many years, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) coordinated their "hit" lists of innovative cancer reseachers who were to be ostracized. One investigative reporter declared the AMA and ACS "for a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices and profits." "In the late 1950's, it was learned that Dr. Henry Welch, head of the FDA's Division of Antibiotics, had secretly received $287,000 from the drug companies he was supposed to regulate. In 1975, an independent government evaluation of the FDA still found massive "conflicts of interest" among the agency's top personnel. "In 1977, an investigative team from the prominent Long Island newspaper Newsday found serious "conflicts of interest" at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 1986, an organized cover-up of an effective alternative cancer therapy, orchestrated by NCI officials, was revealed during Congressional hearings. "These examples are only the tip of a huge iceberg. The cancer establishment now has a 50-year history of vast corruption, incompetence and organized suppression of cancer therapies which actually work. Millions of people have suffered terrible torture and death because those in charge took payoffs, played it safe, had closed minds to the innovative, or simply were afraid to do what was obviously and morally right... "The doctor's union (AMA), the cancer bureaucracy (NCI), the public relations fatcats (ACS) and the cancer cops (FDA) are conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.... It would be easy for any Congressional committee, major newspaper, television network or national magazine to confirm and extend the evidence presented here in order to initiate radical reform of the critical cancer areas--the hospitals, the research centers, the government agencies, and especially state and local legislation regarding cancer treatment. "But that will not happen without a struggle. Neither Congress nor the media desire to lift the manhole cover on this sewer of corruption and needless torture. Only organized, determined citizen opposition to the existing cancer treatment system has any hope of bringing about the long-needed changes. I expect the struggle to be a long, difficult one against tough, murderous opposition. The odds against success are heavy. The vested interests are very powerful.... " Barry Lynes Taken from the introduction to The Healing of Cancer, The Cures-The Cover-ups and the Solution Now! The mountain of evidence to support the collusive activities of Western governments, most particularly the United States, along with other prominent members of the Medical Industrial Complex, is beyond voluminous. Nonetheless, it is beyond the scope of this Web site to present all the supporting facts. Instead, we have opted to present our case -- (some of which may seem tangential to "cancerolytic herbs," but virtually all of it provides the explanatory underpinnings as to why so many effective botanically-derived formulas have been suppressed) -- through the following excellent books. Below you will find pictures of their covers, along with links of cover enlargements and order pages on amazon.com. On page two we provide a brief summary that more directly addresses the suppression of cancerolytic ("cancer-killing") herbal preparations. Again, most of these titles are available from amazon.com -- still, if you have any trouble, call the Cancer Book House, a division of the Cancer Control Society, 2043 N. Berendo, Los Angeles, CA 90027. Their phone number is: (213) 663-7801. Index of Titles Confessions of a Medical Heretic The Medical Mafia: How to Get Out of It Alive & Take Back Our Health & Wealth The Medical Industrial Complex | The McDougall Plan Racketeering in Medicine: The Supression of Alternatives The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment & Prevention The Cancer Cure That Worked! Fifty Years of Suppression OPTIONS: The Alternative Cancer Therapy Book | The CanCell Controversy You Don't Have To Die | The Healing of Cancer PAGE TWO: Politics in Healing The Politics of Cancer Revisited (Epstein, 1998) When Healing Becomes a Crime -- The Amazing Story of the Hoxsey Cancer Clinics & the Return of Alternative Therapies Amish Folk Medicine | Beating Cancer With Nutrition Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide World Without Cancer | Alive And Well Too much truth there? BTW, the word you learned from your buddy Mark Probert says a lot about you. > More importantly, the people delay effective treatment and, instead, get > ineffective treatment. Like this...................................... The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) >> Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the >> worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff And you aren't Jeff Utz either. Eh? > <...> >"Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During >the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In >1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a >bunch of sh.t.' Please stop repeating lies, Jan. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/04april.htm#2watsonlie Here's what the people at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said: "I have confirmed that Dr. Watson did not say the quote below. Dr. Watson gave a lecture at MIT, March 1975, for The Academic Community and Cancer Research. He was misquoted in the New York Times, stating that the "National Cancer Program was a sham." His reference was actually to the National Cancer Plan, not the National Cancer Program, and the Times reporter later issued a retraction. "Hope this clears it up for you..." If you don't believe me, write to Dr Watson yourself.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives . Source by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D. A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons. Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture. If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it can cost you your life. In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly. Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies, conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported. To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality. Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable, while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate the field of oncology. The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer. Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS, was its vice chairman. <...> > The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little > to do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with > political control over the therapy marketplace. For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative treatments actually work. They don't. Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative > treatments actually work. They don't. Jeff cannot show that Alt. treatments do not work. But he will be happy to blather on about it. Hint for Jeff, when people get well from Alternative treatments, they do not report to Jeff. In fact, the alopaths will not ever hear from them. Why would anyone expose themselves to toxic crap once it was idetified? When one considers who and what ol Jeffy is, well......... > Jeff >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Jeff cannot show that Alt. treatments do not work. You have that backwards. Alties have to show their potions, goos and hocus pocus works. One would think that after all these years Hulda Clark, Stan B. et al would be able to host a group of their miraculously cured customers. There should be legions of them. WHERE ARE THEY? DO THEY EXIST? > For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative > treatments actually work. They don't. > > Jeff your's don't work, at least we know that. With chemo you can get it on the market if it reverses tumour growth, not get rid of it the allopathic conspiracy http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html >> For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative >> treatments actually work. They don't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >your's don't work, at least we know that. With chemo you can get it on the >market if it reverses tumour growth, not get rid of it Quite reasonable. A friend of mine has just been diagnosed with breast cancer, fairly advanced. They're going to try chemo first, to shrink the tumor. That way, she can have a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy (which she very much does not want). Chemo also worked very well to shrink the lung cancer tumors that my best friend's father had. (It was inoperable.) -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Your post is a complete waste of electrons. Ah..................................settle down. Rlaph Moss is NOT of organized medicine. Would you care to discuss Memorial Sloan-Kettering , the NCI ACS, or FDA? All known for L I E S! OR.................................. The shopping on the ratbags websites? Not surprised you can't deal with truth. Furthermore, do not email me privately...not kidsdoc, but: From Jeff Sat Nov 17 06:13:38 2007 X-Apparently-To: jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net via 209.191.85.234; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:13:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.233.184.228] Return-Path: jeff.utz@gmail.com Uh Hmmmmmmm. > http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm > > How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful > Alternatives Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well. Stop posting lies and spam. >> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well. > Stop posting lies and spam. What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam? Just curious. Jeff >>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Just curious. She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has even the slightest grasp of the concepts. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has > even the slightest grasp of the concepts. We "get it". Now she can tell me to shut up (again). J >>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has > even the slightest grasp of the concepts. Your many lies have been proven over and over. Ever notice when the cold hard truth is told the personally atacks start? Grasp these concepts. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/books.htm http://www.acahf.org.au https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/shop/shop.htm See any spam there? Andrew? Jeff? Comon now don't be shy. >>>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Your many lies have been proven over and over. Citations, please. Links to the lies and explanations of why they are lies would be a place to start. >Ever notice when the cold hard truth is told the personally atacks start? > >Grasp these concepts. > >http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/books.htm Is that link in my sig, Jan? If not, why do you mention it? And how is it a "concept"? See any books you like there, Jan? Please don't forget to call yourself a spammer the next time you provide a link to, eg, the National Vaccine (dis)Information Center's site where books are sold. >http://www.acahf.org.au How is a link to that organisation spam? >https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/shop/shop.htm Is that a link in my sig, Jan? If not, why do you mention it? >See any spam there? Andrew? Jeff? > >Comon now don't be shy. Comon (sic) now, make some sense. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives . Source by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D. A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons. Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture. If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it can cost you your life. In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly. Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies, conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported. To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality. Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable, while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate the field of oncology. The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer. Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS, was its vice chairman. >>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff LOL! Are you curious that Andrew Kingoff doesn't know who he is? Naa. ALL honest people should know the truth and this is it! A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons. Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture. If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it can cost you your life. In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly. Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies, conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported. To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality. Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable, while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate the field of oncology. The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer. Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS, was its vice chairman. http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.