One Of The Most Important Scientists In The World: “Most Cancer Research Is Largely A Fraud”

I stumbled upon this material that adds up to the myriad of the claims about pharmaceuticals, research about cancer etc that are a fraud. The read is a bit long but very interesting and educative.

“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.

The source for this is www.collective-evolution.com...

but the material it self has been taken from this site: nationalpress.org...

In addition to what Mr.Pauling says is also the below material

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...

vivisectionresearch.ca...


Within the material on the first source there are plenty of linked other sources with vast information on the subject. Makes up for a good read.

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.

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!

Have you seen this one? It's a little old, but still......www.youtube.com... Need some change?!

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.

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: 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!

Excellent find as is here in this thread, kudos to you and Telos, I don't know how I missed your thread, but I will look at it.

a reply to: Telos

Thanks for posting this Telos. Before I go over this mountain of material I just wanted to say...
We are clearly in the midst of an epidemic be it young, old, male, female.
My worry is when does it stop?
When more than 50% of us have cancer?
Well we are quickly approaching that station...
50% will get cancer forcast says

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.

I may be wrong, but it looked to me like it was linked to a 1997 article...if so, hardly cutting edge.

I just checked out some Internet sources on how much is spent on cancer research and came up with about $2,000,000,000.00 in 2010. Now all of us older folk know numerous people who died from cancer as well as many who survived it so good is certainly being done to some extent, but just by looking at the amount of money that is collected and spent each year you simply have to believe that curing it would be more destructive and far less profitable to the already terminal economy. The research field provides for many, many high paying jobs for people that have spent a lot of money educating themselves into positions where they can qualify for these lucrative jobs, and as such has created a sort of Welfare for the Educated and Politically Connected. If this system were to break down it could be a fatal blow to the already diseased US economy. So as George Carlin once wrote in a book of his, the rich and powerful need your support so keep the cash rolling in, or something to that effect.

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.

a reply to: Telos

Here in the UK, one university in Edinburgh was stated - in the Press - to have found a CURE for Cancer in the late 1960s. Three days later the press were made to 'Apologise' saying how they had got it wrong and No such CURE was or had then been found. 1975 my Mother died of Cancer, and yet all we ever hear - especially on recent TV ads is How close Cancer Research are to finding a Cure. Do more research for your own reason and see what a stack of experts now have to say about such, especially when our Ph is referred to.

Thanks for opening such a worthy door, keep up the good work.

You well deserve a growing number of Stars.

a reply to: steaming

In the States, or perhaps at least in New Jersey we have a system we call Pay to Play. Everyone is ok with it because it is a catch phrase, or a cliché or a cool slogan and therefore acceptable by the general public that is more concerned with what tie will go with what suit tomorrow or how exactly they can get their secretary into the sack than anything else in their existences. Pay to Play or Corruption by Payoff just goes on, decade after decade and no one notices, no one cares. In the end unlike what Mick the Prick once sang, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you deserve!

I wonder if it's something to do with controlling population numbers. Like it or not, people need to die. Otherwise, our population would increase to the point where it ceases to function. Given that in the developed world, historical harbingers of mortality such as starvation and war are no longer an issue for most people, a non-contagious disease like cancer seems like a great choice for regulating population numbers. I'm not saying that the government is deliberately giving people cancer, just that perhaps they don't really care so much about curing it. And even then, I'm very skeptical of what I just said.

There is a disparity of cancer rates between developed and developing countries. Less developed countries have lower cancer rates. Evidently, something in industrialised nations is causing more cancer - I say this taking into account life expectancy. Perhaps the focus needs to be shifted from the cure to the cause.

But what would be causing cancer? Products made of plastic? I highly doubt corporations would like to be outed for manufacturing carcinogenic products, or emitting carcinogenic waste, and they have a lot of power. Perhaps they are inhibiting cancer research in order to continue their operations without expensive reforms. I suspect something is at play here, but it's certainly not straightforward.

a reply to: Telos

Good on ya mate for posting this. I've believed this for the past 25 years since I remember a large sum of money raised couldn't even pay for a researchers wages/fees. Some went to administration costs to advertise for more money. Bit of an industry aye!

There are those overheads of course including paying for international conferences, administration of such, expensive researcher wages (yes, they are not volunteers), production and advertising, paraphenalia and I guess the list goes on.

The feet on the ground are the volunteers who work for nothing. I think it's tragic that their hard work ends up squandered on some costly trips abroad for others travelling 1st class. The same old results are furnished with the bottom line for the free workers - "more money" - "we need to attend another conference!"

I liken it to the latest FIFA scandel.

Kind regards,

Bally

Thank you for this thread.

I was just wondering the other day, after hearing a commercial for a pharmaceutical, that one of the side effects may be CANCER,
How the hell can they make a drug that can CAUSE cancer, yet not CURE it?


Does that really make sense to anyone?

a reply to: Telos

A lot of people have been saying this for years. Great for posting it, I'm enjoying hearing it from prominent members of science community.

Billions of dollars pour into big pharma and other cancer research organizations, only to end up in their pockets, or spent on donor events that again, just increase profit for what is laughably called 'non profit' organizations.

At this point, IMO if the truth did come out, we'd have to start trials for all the corrupt people who've been keeping the research either hidden, or not allowing valid theories to be researched properly.

~Tenth

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.

Did a quick chceck and jumped onto the internet typed prostate cancer, breast cancer, remission rates etc and guess what. What you have stated is pure fiction. Why didn't you do this before replying ? or would this conflict with your incorrect belief system. Cancer death rates are decreasing at a rate of 1.8-2.3% per year depending on age and sex.

Detection of cancer has gone up DUH of course it has !!!! Do I need state the bleedin obvious with links !!!!
Remission is improving ie the % of those diagnosed who recover is improving.
More people will get cancer because they are cured of everything else and live longer ....DUH !!!!!

Pass me the stupid tablets so I can become ignorant and not get annoyed by these dumb threads.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yes the specter of "non profit" corporation always fools the masses it sounds so benevolent. I happen to work for one myself and this is how it works, the entity collects all of the cash it brings in through business, donations and government supplements and at the end of the fiscal year the top dogs pay out all that is left after operating expenses to themselves and their high ranking upper echelon people in the form of salaries and/or bonuses, bingo - no profits left and complete compliance. Only "foundations" have a better gig. Still I do not begrudge them, I just have seen the truth of the matter from the inside. I have no problem being the low paid working slob that does the dirty work because I can afford to do this, but mostly because it is what I do and what I enjoy doing. Someone has to be the slave and I embrace my lot in life it is the key to happiness.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

You are wrong. Cancer death rates are decreasing because of our ability to treat it over the last forty years but overall cancer rates have been steadily increasing. One in three people now will get cancer in their lifetime. Cancer is treated now with some pretty invasive methods and deaths that occur from cancer are not always listed as dying from cancer. Cancer treatment causes a lot of undesirable side effects that can cause death by other diseases. Most times it is immune suppression caused by the chemotherapy that causes problems. These side effects are most often not considered a death by cancer either because the cancer is not present anymore.

Maybe you need to look at the big picture and not just deaths. Look at increases in overall incidents of cancer and not deaths from cancer. Prostate cancer was almost nonexistent fifty years ago.

Now, there are factors to be considered one being that if you do not die of a heart attack in your fifties or early sixties, you may later get cancer. But even if you take that into consideration, the rate of cancer has increased. There have been ups and downs in cancer rates throughout history, but the rate now is higher than what it was in the fifties and sixties.

I never stated death from cancer was up in my post, just that cancer rates were up. You are the one who is blind