“An Australian study looking at the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates in adults with malignancies found that the “overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”
May 18, 2017
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. According to the National Institute of Health, around 1,658,370 new cases will be diagnosed and 589,430 people will die from cancer in 2015.
While most conventional cancer treatments revolve around a mix of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, some people question their efficacy — particularly chemotherapy.
In the following videos two naturopathic doctors make the argument that in many cases, chemo does more harm than good.
In the first video, Peter Glidden, BS, ND, brings up the relationship between cancer and monetary profit.
Glidden, author of The MD Emperor Has No Clothes, cites a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which found that over a 12-year period, chemotherapy did not cure adult cancer 97 percent of the time.
“Why is it still used? There’s one reason, and one reason only,” Glidden says in the video. “Money.”
He points out that while doctors don’t get direct kickbacks for prescribing most medications, chemo drugs are unique in that the doctors purchase them from the pharmaceutical company and then sell them to patients at a profit.
“Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of,” Glidden says.
“The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it — period. It doesn’t work 97 percent of the time. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97 percent of the time, would they still be in business?” he asks. “No.”
An Australian study looking at the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates in adults with malignancies found that the “overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”
In their conclusion, the researchers stated: “it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival.”
He cites this issue as just one example of a so-called healthcare system that prioritizes profits over human wellness.
“This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us,” says Glidden.
“Medicine in the United States is a for-profit industry. Most people are unaware of this, and most people bow down to the altar of MD-directed high-tech medicine.”
“If you have a garden with flowers and bushes and trees and grass, and some weeds, you come with Agent Orange and kill it all off, and now it’s all dead, and you hope only the good stuff is coming back,” Coldwell says. “They bombard the entire system and then they say the cancer is in remission.”
He notes that statistics on the effectiveness of cancer cures refer to survival rates after five years.
“You killed basically every bioelectrical and biochemical function in the body,” he says. “Since nothing works anymore, for three years, you have no cancer, you’re cured. You’re just dead in five years.”
Coldwell claims that radiation can cause similar harm.
“It’s an assault with a deadly weapon,” he says. “When you radiate someone, it’s causing scars. A scar can never turn back into healthy tissue.”
The problem, he says, is the way doctors are trained.
“No medical doctor ever learns about curing anything,” says Coldwell. “They learn about chemical intervention or surgery to suppress symptoms. They don’t go for the root cause.”
He points out that doctors have high rates of suicide as well as alcohol and drug abuse.
“These poor guys figure out over time that they have no tools and that they are murdering, and [have] murdered, their patients,” Coldwell says.
“You go into the medical profession, the first year, the first two years, you’re really excited, you’re really in it, you’re giving your all, until you find out no matter what you do the patient gets worse, or they cure themselves.”
“These poor doctors figure out they cannot help,” he says. “The medical profession is a religion.”
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Documentary)
How the Cancer Industry Deceives You with Cancer Drugs (Documentary)
Annie Dookhan better be ready to spend the rest of her miserable life in jail because she now has over 20,000 people extremely mad an furious at her. Stupid woman.
Massachusetts may soon hold the record for the most massive single dismissal of wrongful convictions in United States history, as state prosecutors announced a breathtaking 21,587 criminal drug convictions will be thrown out.
Tens of thousands had been arrested based on testimony and evidence provided by Annie Dookhan — a former state chemist arrested in 2013 for obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, and perjury, pertaining to misconduct over the course of her nine-year tenure at a state crime lab in Boston.
Investigators remain uncertain as to Dookhan’s motivation, though colleagues believed her apparent obsession with overachieving may have meant cutting corners or even faking results. As the state’s most prolific analyst, the chemist — who pled guilty in a plea deal and served three years in prison — garnered praise from supervisors, but doubts from coworkers.
“Today is a major victory for justice and fairness, and for thousands of people in the Commonwealth who were unfairly convicted of drug offenses,” declared Matthew Segal, who assisted litigating for the Massachusetts ACLU. “Unfortunately, the victims of this crisis waited far too long for justice. It shouldn’t have taken years of litigation by the ACLU, public defenders, and pro bono lawyers to address this stain on the Commonwealth’s justice system.”
UPI reports, “The seven district attorney offices with cases affected by Dookhan’s crimes brought their lists to the state Supreme Judicial Court clerk’s office in Boston on Tuesday. The court is expected to issue an order of dismissal this week.”
Both the Massachusetts state public defender and American Civil Liberties Union explained re-trying some 24,000 individual cases pertaining to 20,000 individuals would paralyze the state’s defense bar — and, more to the point, would be inconsequential in light of the ineffectual War on Drugs.Rather than cope with such a superfluous backlog, the Supreme Judicial Court, highest in the state, ruled Dookhan’s callous ineptitude, “government misconduct that has cast a shadow over the entire criminal justice system,” according to the Washington Post.
In the court’s opinion, Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants noted the ‘ongoing impact’ of the false convictions on the individuals’ lives — including added burdens in seeking jobs, housing, or financial aid.
District attorneys in the eight counties affected by Dookhan’s egregious mishandling received orders from the highest court in January to review pertinent reports within 90 days, in order to determine which could be feasibly retried and those which should be dropped.
Prosecutors delivered those lists to the court Tuesday.
According to UPI, the “counties involved are Bristol, Essex, Cape and Islands, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk. Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said in a statement that 117 of 15,570 cases will be pursued and the rest dropped; Bristol Count District Attorney Thomas Quinn III said that 112 of more than 1,500 cases involving Dookhan’s analysis would go forward; Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe said his office would prosecute one case and drop 1,067.”
In a statement, O’Keefe explained, “We are dealing with drug defendants, the overwhelming majority of whom pleaded guilty, went through an exhaustive plea colloquy with a judge and testified under oath that they were ‘pleading guilty because they were guilty and for no other reason.”
Convictions must be tossed, he added, “because we believe that the integrity of our system of justice is more important than their convictions.”
Astonishingly, Dookhan lied about her chemistry degree, forged supervisors’ initials, and admitted to performing the most perfunctory of visual tests. Investigators noted her colleagues expressed doubts about the workaholic’s performance — but those concerns were never addressed by supervisors.
“The dismissal of thousands of tainted drug lab cases rightly puts justice over results,” asserted Massachusetts Bar Association Chief Legal Counsel Martin Healey. “It is a necessary and long-overdue outcome, given our criminal justice system’s responsibility to ensure a level playing field for all, regardless of the offense.”
Attorney Daniel Marx, who represented some of those wrongfully convicted, explained a number of the ‘Dookhan defendants’ had served time in prison and experienced unnecessarily harsh repercussions in daily living thanks to the chemist’s quest to achieve.
“Now,” Marx said, “a majority of these wrongfully convicted individuals will have the opportunity to clear their records and move on with their lives.”
Claire Bernish began writing as an independent, investigative journalist in 2015, with works published and republished around the world. Not one to hold back, Claire’s particular areas of interest include U.S. foreign policy, analysis of international affairs, and everything pertaining to transparency and thwarting censorship. To keep up with the latest uncensored news, follow her on Facebook or Twitter: @Subversive_Pen. This article first appeared here at TheFreeThoughtProject.com
Image Credit: Pixabay.com
With permission from
By CHRIS ERNESTO
April 18, 2017
US president Donald Trump sounded sincere when he described how he felt after seeing pictures of “beautiful little babies” allegedly killed by a Syrian government chemical weapons attack on April 4.
“These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated,” said Trump, and hours later, the US launched nearly 60 tomahawk missiles in response to the allegations.
But what about the beautiful little babies killed by US bombs since Trump became president? Is Trump not concerned about those children because they were killed by his missiles, and not Assad’s chemical weapons?
Here are a few of the instances:
— An eight-year-old girl was killed during a US raid in Yemen in January. The girl, Nora al-Awlaki, was a US citizen and the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born Muslim who was killed by the Obama administration in 2011 for his purported ties to al-Qaeda. In 2015, Nora’s older brother, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, was killed by a US airstrike in Yemen. Nora al-Awlaki was shot in the neck by members of US SEAL Team 6 as they raided houses of suspected al-Qaeda members. Several Yemeni women were also killed in the raid.
— At least 18 civilians, mostly women and children, were killed in February by US airstrikes aimed at the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to the United Nations. “How could women and children be Taliban?” asked a resident of Sangin, who said 11 people were killed in his brother’s house in an airstrike.
— More than 200 civilians, including 34 women and 32 children were killed in US airstrikes around Raqqa, Syria since March, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. In one incident, at least 33 civilians were killed when a US airstrike hit a school that was used as a shelter by Syrian families who were fleeing ISIS in Raqqa.
— US airstrikes in Mosul, Iraq killed up to 240 civilians, including scores of children last month when US forces dropped bombs on civilian homes in response to a handful of ISIS fighters who were using the local residents’ roofs. Munatha Jasim, who lost her four-year-old daughter, seven-year-old son, and seven other relatives when her home was destroyed, said a sniper had set up across the street from her house. “Just because one ISIS [fighter] was on our house, the [US] aircraft bombed us.” Another resident, Ali Abdulghani told the New York Times, “not all of the houses had [ISIS] on the roof … why, just because of one [ISIS], kill everyone?”
More and more people are asking for proof that Assad gassed his own people
The fact that Trump’s bombs are killing innocent people in four countries is bad enough, but his most recent rationale for bombing Syria is based on unproven claims that the Syrian government used sarin against civilians.
The only ‘evidence’ presented to the public thus far by the White House is an unclassified report in which “open-source material” and “pro-opposition social media reporting” are part of a package of information that led the Trump administration to believe with a “very high degree of confidence” that the Syrian regime carried out the sarin attacks.
So, “open-source material” and “pro-opposition social media reporting” count as intelligence? And a “very high degree of confidence” is the bar set by Trump to determine whether or not to bomb another country?
As astonishing as that seems, it hasn’t stopped the media from believing the unproven narrative, as FAIR pointed out last week: of the top 100 US newspapers, only 1 paper, the Houston Chronicle, said the attack shouldn’t have happened.
But a growing number of journalists including Stephen Cohen, Robert Parry, Gareth Porter, Justin Raimondo, Rick Sterling and former members of congress Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have been expressing serious doubts about the White House claims. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is demanding evidence that Assad was responsible for the attack (Gabbard was skewered by establishment Democrats for her remarks – Howard Dean said Gabbard is a “disgrace” and that she should “not be in congress.”)
Even conservative columnist Ann Coulter is questioning Assad’s culpability and the ensuing US military response:
“Assad is one of the least bad leaders in the entire Middle East. He’s not a murderous thug like Saddam, has no rape rooms, isn’t into jihad, protects Christians, and is fighting ISIS. He provided us with intelligence on al-Qaida after 9/11. He does not have crazy Islamic police slapping women around or throwing gays off buildings. (That would be our beloved ally, Saudi Arabia.)
“Now we hear [Trump] saw the sad picture, which, let’s be honest, is probably faked. It makes no sense that Assad would do this … this is the rise of the military industrial complex, the neocons, permanent war.”
Additionally, Theodore A. Postol, a former scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations, and an MIT professor of Science, Technology and National Security, said that the National Security Council generated a “fraudulent intelligence report” as part of “a dedicated attempt to manufacture a false claim that the intelligence actually supported the president’s decision to attack Syria.”
And Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, said that military and intelligence personnel intimately familiar with the Syrian chemical gas intelligence believe Trump’s claims are a “sham.” Giraldi said his intelligence sources are “astonished” by the establishment’s narrative, and that they are considering going public due to their concerns of an escalation of violence in Syria.
If this is true, it would be nice for those people to seek ways to disseminate their information as soon as possible. The longer the “Assad gassed his own people” claims stick around, the more likely people will be to accept Syrian regime change as palatable. This concept was studied by researchers from the University of Michigan who say there is a phenomenon known as “backfire” where misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts – and often become even more attached to their beliefs.
Mar 30, 2017
According to figures released by 23 of Britain’s 24 Russell Group universities following Freedom of Information (FoI) requests submitted by the BBC, the scale of fraudulent research is much higher than official Research Councils UK (RCUK) statistics suggest.
The figures reveal at least 300 allegations including plagiarism and fabrication.
Official data, however, suggests about 30 cases were reported between 2012 and 2015.
In response, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry to reassure the public that its monitoring system is “robust.”
Committee Chairman Stephen Metcalfe stressed the importance of reassuring people that public funds are being invested in accurate and trustworthy research.
“Where research has been found to be fraudulent at a later point it has a big impact on the public – it leads to mistrust,” he told the BBC.
“What we want to do is to investigate how robust the mechanisms are for ensuring that research is ethical, it is accurate, it is, to a degree, reproducible.”
According to the new data, around a third of allegations for plagiarism, fabrication, piracy and misconduct were upheld, while over 30 papers were withdrawn.
Although Metcalfe said the BBC’s findings must be balanced against the overall number of research papers, he said transparency is essential to build trust.
“We do need to have accurate figures that are available so we can all have confidence that the research is being conducted properly, and when it’s not, there is a system that challenges that,” he said.
It is thought that the inaccuracy and sloppiness in academic papers is due to researchers rushing through their copy in order to get grants to carry on with their work.
A spokesman for the Russell Group, however, said it takes “integrity” into thorough account.
“Our universities take research integrity seriously and work continuously to help staff and students maintain high standards of research,” he said, according to the BBC.
“The UK has a global reputation for the quality of our scientific research.
“This is not least because our members are rigorous in their approach to research integrity.”
Deliberate research fraud seldom occurs, but when it does take place it comes with severe risks, such as undermining public health or losing trust in the eyes of the public which funds it.
There are calls for a UK regulatory body to oversee publicly-funded research. Although Metcalfe said the idea could be looked into, he claimed there is currently “no appetite for that in the wider community.”
Under a concordat, to which UK universities signed up back in 2012 to guarantee transparency in reporting allegations of research misconduct, higher education institutions are still not obliged to release figures on allegations of fraudulent research.
According to an audit by vice-chancellors group Universities UK, only 35 out of 131 universities released figures on research misconduct to the public.
Co-founder of Retraction Watch, Dr. Ivan Oransky, backed the BBC findings and said the number of research misconduct cases being reported falls short of the real extent of the issue.
“We do not have a good handle on how much research misconduct takes place, but it’s become quite clear that universities and funding agencies and oversight bodies are not reporting even a reasonable fraction of the number of cases that they see,” Oransky told the BBC.
With permission from
Memo to “medical bloggers” living in mommy’s basement
I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.
The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.
And therein lies the gigantic problem.
Statnews.com has the bombshell story (July 21, 2016):
“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”
“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”
“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”
“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”
Getting the picture?
HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.
Their work is completely unreliable.
Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.
It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.
This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.
This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.
The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.
Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?
The FDA knows about it.
The CDC knows about it.
The World Health Organization knows.
National health departments all over the world know.
Medical schools know.
Many doctors know.
Many, many researchers know.
Many hospital executives know.
All pharmaceutical executives know.
Many mainstream medical reporters know.
All medical journals know.
But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.
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.