Category Archives: Cancer

8 quotes from a cancer surgeon that will set your hair on fire

Eight quotes from a cancer surgeon that will set your hair on fire

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

His name is Marty Makary. He’s a cancer surgeon and researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the School of Public Health.

Propublica’s Marshall Allen interviewed him about patient harm, in conjunction with an ongoing propublica investigation.

http://www.propublica.org/article/qa-marty-makary-m.d.-author-of-unaccountable

Keep in mind that these quotes are coming from a mainstream doctor who is inside the system and who believes in the system. That makes Makary’s statements all the more shocking.

“…1 in 4 hospital patients are harmed by a mistake.”

“A cardiologist in Wisconsin was fired for pointing out that EKGs were misread more than 25% of the time.”

“We [doctors] are also evaluated by the number of ‘value units’ at the end of each fiscal quarter. Our management will sit down with us and say your work units are down or up and in order for you to receive a large bonus you need to increase the number of operations you do…”

“There is New England Journal of Medicine-level data that suggests that almost half of [health] care is not compliant with evidence.” [In other words, almost 50% of all health care in America isn’t even based on published mainstream studies…and, I should add, there is conclusive evidence that half of these studies are untrustworthy in the first place. Therefore, to say that conventional doctors are winging it is a vast understatement. JR]

“…up to 30% of health care in unnecessary…”

“I saw cases where a patient was not told about a minimally invasive way of doing a particular surgery because of physician preference or training, and the doctor would just hope the that he [the patient] wouldn’t find out.”

“Medical mistakes are fifth-or-sixth-most common cause of death in the United States, depending on the measure.”

“…The desire and reflex of docs to offer something to patients, even when there’s not much more else they can offer. There’s a strong financial incentive. Doctor groups pay for new equipment that they purchase on borrowed money.” [In other words, ‘we have this expensive equipment, we have to use it to pay for it.’ JR]

Since Dr. Makary works at Johns Hopkins, he is no doubt familiar with a landmark review done by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who also worked at Hopkins for many years.

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Starfield’s review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Starfield revealed the following facts:

In the US, the annual death rate, as a direct result of medical treatment, is 225,000 people. Of those, 106,000 are killed by FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs. The other 119,000 are killed by medical mistreatment in hospitals. This makes medically caused death the third leading cause of mortality in America.

The Matrix Revealed

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

She assured me that, since the publication of her review in 2000, no federal agency had contacted her to ask for help in fixing this unconscionable horror, and no agency had undertaken a significant program to reverse the third leading cause of death in the US.

Aside from the medically caused death rate, there is medical maiming. In 2001, the LA Times published a shocking article by Linda Marsa.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/08/health/he-9609

The article revealed that, in addition to the deaths, 2.1 million more people were admitted to US hospitals every year, as a result of severe reactions to pharmaceutical drugs. And, every year, there were 36 million adverse drug reactions in America.

Those people who support the onset of Obamacare might reflect on all these things. With millions of new people brought into the medical system, the horrific pain-and-death numbers cited in this article are going to escalate. And those numbers equal real human beings.

But don’t worry. You’re humane to want Obamacare. You’ll get a gold star on the blackboard for your sentiments.

Keep sending me your emails expressing those sentiments. I print them and tape them to my wall, right next to the death-and-maiming numbers. It’s a nice collection.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn’t have cancer

Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn’t have cancer

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Allyn Rose (twitter), 24, has announced she’ll have a double mastectomy after the Miss America pageant is over.

She doesn’t have cancer.

“If I were to win [the contest]…I would have this incredible platform to speak to my generation…” Rose said.

Rose has been making the rounds of media outlets, announcing her intention, promoting what can only be called the medically-assisted culture of self-mutilation.

Read Mike Adam’s devastating article about the new study showing mammograms produce vast over-diagnosis of non-existent cancers, leading to cut-burn-poison treatments.

The case of Allyn Rose goes even beyond that. She has received no diagnosis of cancer. This is now a growing trend: precautionary mastectomies.

In Rose’s case, it’s about a marker, called Wiskott-Aldrich, which signals a very rare immune disorder, almost always found in boys.

Rose has been called a carrier. She is without symptoms.

But because this marker is said to run in her mother’s family, because her mother died at a young age, as a result of breast cancer, and because, we are told, breast cancer “runs in her mother’s family,” Allyn Rose has decided to have both her breasts removed.

Medical literature claims a high correlation between this Wiskott-Aldrich marker and cancers. But breast cancer specifically?

The director of the Wiskott-Aldrich foundation, Dr. Sumathi Iyengar, told the Washington Post’s Reliable Source there was only some anecdotal evidence pointing to a possible connection.

I spoke with Dr. Iyengar and she was much more emphatic, stressing there is “no evidence” proving a link between the Wiskott-Aldrich marker and breast cancer.

On this basis, a healthy young woman of 24 is having both her breasts removed; she has been hailed as a hero; and she will go on the road and function as a promoter for her cause.

Naturally, Allyn Rose is working with the Susan Komen Foundation, notorious for its propaganda about the need for mammograms and “early diagnosis” and treatment.

What message will Rose be sending to young impressionable girls who want to gain status, recognition, and praise? The answer is obvious. Suddenly, popularity and acclaim are just one surgery away.

Major media outlets are playing along, of course. Where are the medical reporters raising objections? Nowhere.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

WHEN A PROMISING CANCER TREATMENT WAS DESTROYED

 

WHEN A PROMISING CANCER TREATMENT WAS DESTROYED

by Jon Rappoport

October 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

As stories of innovative cancer treatments have spread over the years, they’ve been distorted numerous times. We end up with either unalloyed praise or across-the-board denial.

“Treatment X was curing people like crazy.”

“Treatment X cured no one and killed many patients.”

Sometimes, the truth lies in the middle ground. However, no one should assume a new treatment that shows promise will be tested, or tested honestly, by the powers-that-be. For the most part, the cancer industry considers these therapies threats to its power and money. The objective is to defame them, destroy them, render them unavailable.

Here is an illustration of how a promising cancer treatment can be buried. The following information comes from Daniel Haley’s brilliant book, Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine.

 

Haley recounts how a 1991 clinical trial of the innovative and “alternative” cancer medicine, hydrazine sulfate (HS), was rigged.

Rigged to fail.

A promising medicine, HS had shown good results in trials at Harbor/UCLA hospital and in Russia. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) felt obligated to test the drug. But there was a catch.

The drug’s discoverer, Dr. Joseph Gold, had found that HS could provoke very dangerous effects if patients were taking other drugs, especially tranquilizers. Several warnings were given to NCI before it began its test. The warnings were explicit. Patients could DIE if they were taking tranquilizers.

It turned out that none of the NCI patients were warned about this. It turned out that 94% of those patients were in fact on tranquilizers.

Barry Tice, an investigator for the US General Accounting Office (GAO), looked into the NCI trial of hydrazine sulfate after it was over. He called Dr. Gold and told him he had found a “smoking gun.” There was an internal NCI memo which showed that NCI was well aware of the problems involved in the drug combinations (and had ignored them).

But the GAO did not back up Tice, its own investigator. The final GAO report on the NCI clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate simply accused NCI of sloppy bookkeeping.

In the June 1995 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a letter from the NCI was published. The letter stated that NCI had omitted mentioning, in its own published account of its cancer study, that 94% of the patients had been on tranquilizers. But this letter did NOT mention how dangerous that situation was; it looked like NCI was simply admitting to a technical and unimportant mistake. A clerical error.

So what did happen to the patients in the NCI hydrazine sulfate study?

In his book, Politics in Healing, Dan Haley reports that all the patients in the study died.

The drug, hydrazine sulfate, a competitor for chemotherapy dollars, was eliminated.

Was this story splashed across the front pages of major newspapers in America? Did the “great men” of television, those holy anchors, insist on covering it with the emphasis it deserved? Of course not.

The story was originally unearthed and published in Penthouse, by reporter Jeff Kamen, who should have won a Pulitzer for it, but won nothing.

And NCI has a rule that none of its patients in clinical trials can have their names revealed.

(Note: THERE ARE OTHER SUBSTANCES AND FOODS WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HYDRAZINE SULFATE AND MAY CAUSE GREAT HARM AND DEATH.)

There is more to this incredible story. Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione’s wife, Kathy Keeton, who was the founder of Longevity, a magazine that was part of the Guccione empire, was diagnosed with “galloping breast cancer” in 1995. She was given 6 weeks to live.

She refused chemotherapy and became a very high-profile case of a person taking hydrazine sulfate instead.

She also chose radiation to reduce one of her many tumors, a growth around her bile duct. Dr. Gold said the dose of radiation should be small, because hydrazine sulfate would enhance the effect of the radiation. But the radiologist gave her the full dose instead, burned her liver and caused later scarring.

Overall, Keeton recovered. In fact, a year after her predicted death date, her cancer was in full remission. The hydrazine sulfate was a remarkable success.

Guccione ran ads in Penthouse, asking for families of the dead victims in the NCI experiment to come forward and join a class-action suit against NCI.

Guccione estimated there had been 600 victims in the NCI clinical test.

In October 1997, Kathy Keeton went into a major and well-respected NY hospital for surgery. From all accounts, this operation had nothing to do with cancer. Amazingly, complications occurred. She died.

Most of America assumed she had succumbed to cancer. Further “proof” that hydrazine sulfate did not work.

Predictably, the FDA got into the act. On April 23, 1998, the agency raided a distributor of hydrazine sulfate, Great Lakes Metabolics, in Rochester, Minnesota. In 2000, the FDA shut down the company that supplied hydrazine sulfate to Great Lakes, and Great Lakes went out of business.

In 1996, when hydrazine sulfate (HS) was still very much in the public spotlight, Dr. Gold stated he received 20 phone calls in one day from doctors at Sloan Kettering, the world’s number one center for toxic chemotherapy research and treatment. These doctors wanted to obtain HS on the sly for their patients. Gold stated that roughly 2/3 of the patients were from the doctors’ families. And six of these doctors had refused to give HS to other patients at Sloan Kettering. The phrase, scum of the Earth, comes to mind.

Author Haley offers a dozen patient testimonials re HS. They are anecdotes, to be sure, but they are remarkable.

Example: “Oncologist report in today. No cancer anywhere, after two and a half months on HS and vitamins/minerals and supplements. They have no idea where cancer went.”

Example: “Seven weeks on hydrazine sulfate. Brain and lung lesions disappeared.”

Example: “I purchased some HS for my sister a few weeks ago. Too early to tell, but she went from near death at the hospital on chemo to a campground some place, with a fishing pole.”

HS studies at Harbor/UCLA and in Russia did not cure everyone, not by a long shot. There are questions about those protocols too, because ordinary foods like raisins are incompatible with HS—and who knows what the patients were fed. At least one later HS study reported no benefits to patients, and some serious harm.

More notes on HS (hydrazine sulfate)…

One session of conventional chemo costs enough to pay for 10 years of treatment with HS.

In 1973, a doctor with a terminal Hodgkins patient approached Dr. Gold for help. Gold recommended a dosage level. In a few weeks, the patient was up and around, not dead. By October of 1973, 1000 patients in the US were on HS.

Dean Burke, head of cell chemistry at NCI, said in 1974 that HS was “the most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years experience in cancer…this material is so cheap because it is made by the trainload for industrial purposes.”

In September 1973, Sloan Kettering (SK), the most prestigious cancer center in the world, started an HS study on terminal patients. The lead physician, Dr. Manuel Ochoa, had agreed to give each patient 60 mg a day for 3 days and then 60 mg 3 times a day after that—but Dr. Gold learned Ochoa was changing the protocol drastically—he was giving 1 mg the first day, then 2 mg the next day, and so on, building up to a top of 30 mg—except in some cases he actually gave patients 120-190 mg a day—brutal overdoses.

In 1975 SK announced HS was worthless.

Dr. Gold then did a study for Calbiochem, a drug company. 70% of 84 patients gained weight and had less pain. HS was, in fact, designed to alleviate wasting away in the first place. 17% of the patients showed tumor regression or a stabilization of their condition for one year.

In 1975, Russian researchers published two positive study findings on HS.

In 1976, the American Cancer Society (ACS) put HS on its dreaded blacklist of “unapproved” cancer treatments. ACS neglected to mention it owned 50% of a competing and highly toxic cancer drug, 5FU.

By 1978, the FDA was cracking down on HS. 5000 patients in the US were on the medicine. The FDA falsely stated that HS caused bone marrow toxicity. In fact, conventional chemo—approved by the FDA—destroys bone marrow.

Jeff Kamen, the reporter who got the HS story out in Penthouse? Here is how he became interested in the first place. His mother Erna came back from cancer with HS. She gained 23 pounds and was doing much better. Then her doctor convinced her to stop HS and go on another experimental drug. In five days, she was dead.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

Cancer: Fraud Across the Board

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2009

Let’s start with this…

ScienceDaily (May 13, 2009), 29 Percent Of Cancer Studies Report Conflict Of Interest:

Nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-impact journals disclosed a conflict of interest, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The most frequent type of conflict was industry funding of the study, which was seen in 17 percent of papers. Twelve percent of papers had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties,” says study author Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School.

The researchers looked at 1,534 cancer research studies published in prominent journals. Results of this current study appear online in the journal Cancer.

“A serious concern is individuals with conflicts of interest will either consciously or unconsciously be biased in their analyses. As researchers, we have an obligation to treat the data objectively and in an unbiased fashion. There may be some relationships that compromise a researcher’s ability to do that,” Jagsi says.

For example, she says, researchers might design industry-funded studies in a way that’s more likely to produce favorable results. They might also be more likely to publish positive outcomes than negative outcomes…

Methodology: The researchers looked at all original clinical cancer research published in five top oncology journals and three top general medical journals in 2006. The journals included were the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet Oncology, Clinical Cancer Research and Cancer…

(end Science Daily clip)

So the researchers are bent. They are bent in the direction of their “non-scientific associations” and connections.

Then we have this, from Boston.com:

Flaws are found in validating medical studies

Many see need to overhaul standards for peer review

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — …after a study that sent reverberations through the medical profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some specialists are calling for radical changes in the system.

…Rennie’s journal published the study, which said that subsequent research had found that almost one-third of the top papers that appeared in top journals over a 13-year period from 1990 to 2003, had been either contradicted or found to have potentially exaggerated results. All the articles had undergone vigorous peer review, leading to questions about whether problems should have been caught by reviewers.

…Under the system of peer review, a researcher submits findings to a journal for publication. Along with a review by editors, the article is sent to several specialists in the field.

These reviewers are not paid for their time, their names are usually not published, and their comments usually remain secret. They are usually not allowed to contact the researchers directly to ask questions, and they do not try to replicate the research.

The system has often had successes; many journal editors say peer review has saved countless prominent scientists from publishing seriously flawed work, and has spared the public from following mistaken medical advice.

But peer review also lacks consistent standards. Procedures vary among the world’s 10,000 or so journals. A peer reviewer often spends about four hours reviewing research that may have taken months or years to complete, but the amount of time spent on a review and the expertise of the reviewer can differ greatly, especially at lesser-known journals.

“It has been bandied about as a sort of ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’,” said Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “It is only as good as the peer reviewers and editors.”

…Ioannidis, the author of the study on flawed research (“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”), said he had examined articles from top journals published from 1990 to 2003, and had found that 16 percent of those studies were later contradicted, and that another 16 percent were not found to have had as strong a result in subsequent research.

…PLOS Medicine also encourages peer reviewers to reveal their identity, but it does not demand it.

The journal’s senior editor, Barbara Cohen, said some reviewers want anonymity out of concern about retribution, which she described as “you trashed my paper at Nature, now I’m trashing yours at Science,” referring to two leading journals.

Cohen also said she is sympathetic to younger peer reviewers who fear that providing criticism of a senior person in the field will hurt their career. This is a common complaint among reviewers.

…Armstrong, the professor who has read dozens of studies on peer review, cited numerous embarrassing incidents that he said had called the peer review process into question.

In one study, for example, researchers submitted a plagiarized paper to 110 journals, but only two publications recognized the problem.

In another study, researchers examined 18 papers that had been published in peer-reviewed journals by a person who later admitted scientific fraud; they found that 16 of the papers had an average of 12 errors each.

One such error was that “the father in one family had his first child at age eight and the next at age nine,” Armstrong wrote.

(end Boston.com clip)

But who in the fold of worshipers of medical authority want to hear such things? Much better to pretend all is well. And that is pretty much what the leading medical journals do. They make a few changes now and then, but mostly they glide along burnishing their own reputations and admiring themselves in the mirror.

For us, though, this kind of news is different.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.