It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)
The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.
This man has been around the block, and obviously knows a thing or two about this subject. And he’s not the only expert from around the world expressing similar beliefs and voicing his opinion.
Cancer Research – A Super Fraud?
by Robert Ryan, B.Sc.
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 Canada, Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer
accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) 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. However, this 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 predominant there...
I came across this article discussing Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of "The Lancet" (which is apparently the "World's Best Known Medical Journal"), and his statement about medical literature being, in many cases, fraudulent yet accepted as pure fact. This is a bold statement and one I'd like to open up a discussion about here on ATS. Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” No wonder we see Class-Action lawsuits against all of these medical devices/drugs shortly after their use by the public. Bearing this in mind, I will definitely think twice before trying any new medications/treatments. This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more. It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. Another respected physician, and Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal commented on this issue: Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” www.collective-evolution.com... (I'm having trouble getting the link to work - I think it is because of the slash symbols - sorry!) Also, from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Horton: The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong For the Wikipedia article on Dr. Horton, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Richard_Horton_(editor)" (couldn't get the URL to work within the thread) Just wow... what do you guys and gals think about all this? The fact that this is being publicly stated by reputable individuals is horrifying. The implications are... well, very frightening.
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
So we know Linus Pauling died of cancer, right? A long time ago as well...1994. I daresay things have changed a mite since his time anyway. Certainly my (successful) prostate cancer therapy was only just a blip on the horizon at that time.
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Telos
Funny you posted this - great find.
I made a thread a few days ago about medical literature being inaccurate:
I came across this article discussing Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of "The Lancet" (which is apparently the "World's Best Known Medical Journal"), and his statement about medical literature being, in many cases, fraudulent yet accepted as pure fact. This is a bold statement and one I'd like to open up a discussion about here on ATS. Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” No wonder we see Class-Action lawsuits against all of these medical devices/drugs shortly after their use by the public. Bearing this in mind, I will definitely think twice before trying any new medications/treatments. This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more. It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. Another respected physician, and Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal commented on this issue: Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” www.collective-evolution.com... (I'm having trouble getting the link to work - I think it is because of the slash symbols - sorry!) Also, from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Horton: The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong For the Wikipedia article on Dr. Horton, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Richard_Horton_(editor)" (couldn't get the URL to work within the thread) Just wow... what do you guys and gals think about all this? The fact that this is being publicly stated by reputable individuals is horrifying. The implications are... well, very frightening.
Thread
S & F for a good thread - thanks for posting!
I may be wrong, but it looked to me like it was linked to a 1997 article...if so, hardly cutting edge.
originally posted by: Telos
[True. But what I posted is not about Pauling. He is just being quoted at the beginning. The rest of the material covers what goes on today.
originally posted by: rickymouse
If you throw a lot of money at cancer research than they will invent better treatments and surgical procedures.
But they won't take action to stop people from getting cancer. There was hardly any prostate cancer fifty years ago. Breast cancer was not very common either. Most people died of heart attacks around here, not cancer.
They need to take the bad chemistry out of our food that is causing this, not half kill us after we get it.
The money is in treating cancer and doing cancer research, this will end when we do not get cancer much anymore.