Posts Tagged ‘cancer news’

A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies, with Filmmaker Mike Anderson

December 7, 2008

A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies, with Filmmaker Mike Anderson

Breaking News for Sunday, December 07, 2008

* Physician Who Performed Hysterectomy on Patient as a Medical Experiment Still Allowed to Practice Medicine
* Forced Medication of Psychiatric Patients Now Being Called Into Question
* 533K Jobs Lost in November, Foreclosures Surge to 1.35 Million Homes as America Teeters on Depression
* Exclusive Video from Generation Rx Film Features Dr. Julian Whitaker on the Drugging of Children
* GM Crops Climb to Nearly One-Tenth of Global Crop Production

See all Breaking News…

FREE Natural Health Newsletter
Receive natural health product reviews, recommendations and alerts.
Instant download of 20+ free health reports and exclusive interviews.
Join over 1.2 million monthly readers.

Unsubscribe anytime, email privacy guaranteed

Products Related to This Article*
• Healing Cancer From the Inside Out (DVD)
Amazing, eye-opening cancer documentary
for anyone wanting to know the truth on cancer

• Spirulina Pacifica
Pure, pristine spirulina superfood
for cancer prevention, alkalizing, immune func

• Blood Support
Halts growth of cancer tumors
for breast cancer and all cancers

* Recommended by the Health Ranger.

Articles Related to This Article:
• The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine

• Cancer is not a Disease – It’s a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

• New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention
(NaturalNews) This interview is an excerpt from Kevin Gianni’s Renegade Roundtable, which can be found at In this excerpt, Mike Anderson shares on his film “Killing Cancer from the Inside Out” and a shocking look at cancer studies.

Renegade Water Secrets with Mike Anderson, who is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and film maker/producer of “Eating” and “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out.”

Kevin: OK, great. I want to talk a little bit about the second film, “Killing Cancer
from the Inside Out.” Just seeing that title kind of opens up a can of worms. Let’s talk about where that idea came from, first.

Mike: The idea is that conventional medicine always, what I call external medicine… They’ll come with their tools from the outside and apply external means to cure something, like cut out a tumor through surgery, or something like that. Whereas you’re really healing cancer from the inside out because cancer means that something is terribly wrong with your body. A tumor is just a symptom of it. The whole biochemistry of your body is screwed up, essentially. And what you have to do is change it. The only way you can change that biochemistry and make your body unfriendly to cancer cells is through diet, primarily. Of course, attitude and mind and stress, they play a role, but I think that varies individual by individual. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as important as diet itself. If
you look at cancer cells themselves, what kind of environment do they like? Acidic environment, there is low oxygen because they can survive without oxygen and a whole host of other things. That’s the kind of environment they thrive in and that’s the kind of environment that’s produced by eating the standard American diet. It shouldn’t be any surprise that we have such an epidemic of cancer, just because the vast majority of cancers are caused by the diet; no question about it.

Kevin: Was there a reason that you created the film?

Mike: I’ve always wanted to do something about cancer and this guy in Florida kind of pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to do it. It turned out to be much… Any project, when you go into it, it turned out to be a much bigger project than I had imagined. The cancer industry itself, I mean, it’s been criticized for a long time.

If you look, I give statistics at the beginning of the film, it was from a report done by a couple of oncologists in Australia, it looked at clinical trials for a 14-year period, up till 2004. What they showed was the treatments for all of our major cancers are totally ineffective. The unique thing about that study is that they used absolute numbers. That means that absolute versus relative numbers. If you take any study in the cancer industry and translate the results into absolute numbers, you’re going to get that dismal result. Like 00000 success and 5-year survival rates for breast, uterine, whatever kind of cancer, cervical, whatever kind of cancer you want. Relative numbers mean just that. They’re relative to something else, like a previous study, and they may show improvement. They’re not 1 out of 100 people.

I tell people, if you’re up for some treatment you’ve got to go to your physician and say, “Out of 100 people, how many are going to benefit from this?” Well, the physician, let’s take tamoxifen for example. The physician will say, “Well, if you take tamoxifen for five years, it’s going to reduce your chances of breast cancer recurrence by 49%.” That is a bald-faced lie. That’s a relative number. If you take the absolute number, it’s only 1.6 people out of 100, instead of you get the impression well, 49 people out of 100 are going to benefit from this. But it’s only 1.6, and that’s what the patient needs to know. That could happen by chance, it’s so low. It could be a placebo effect, it’s so low.

All of these, for our major cancers, they’re all under 10%, way below 10% in terms of effectiveness. But what the cancer industry has done is use relative statistics. If you go to the American Cancer Society facts and figures, you will see that every single number in there has “Relative” in front of it, and that’s a big mystery. Relative, relative to what? It could be a previous study. It’s a manipulated number and it’s totally false.

So like in the case of tamoxifen, they show that drug to be almost 50 times more effective than it actually is. And this is impressing patients. People who know these statistics will say a patient should never be given relative numbers because they don’t understand them; they’re for statisticians. Well, it’s not just patients, but oncologists. Since I’ve made the film, I’ve talked to half a dozen oncologists who don’t even know the difference between the relative and absolute numbers. They just read the drug sheets and they pair up the numbers to the patients and they say, “Oh that sounds pretty good. OK, let’s do it.” They have no idea. That, to me, is fraud. I mean, especially if the oncologist knows about it and he’s presenting a 49% effective treatment, whereas in fact, it’s only 1.6% effective. That’s just wrong.

I would not do it. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do it. I mean, you’d be better off taking a placebo and a beer, rather than going with that drug. But that’s true across the board, there, incredibly ineffective.

I saw the “Morning Show” on ABC and this Nancy Schneiderman was on there, and they were saying that early-stage breast cancer, they had a 91% cure rate, right, over 5 years. Well, that’s just nonsense. You can do nothing and have that same statistic. You can do absolutely nothing with the breast cancer and have that same statistic. In fact, it should be higher because breast cancer is a very slow-growing cancer and you should easily get that if it’s an early-stage cancer. But they manipulate numbers, they make the treatments look much more effective than they really are because there’s a lot of money involved in this, a lot of money. If you translated all the numbers into absolute numbers, the cancer industry would be out of business. These are the numbers that are presented to Congress. These are the numbers that they present to Congress in order to get more funding. They’re totally manipulated and no one knows it. So anyway, I can’t even remember the original question.

Kevin: That was the amazing. So, let’s just review the numbers here for people
who may be still kind of not as mathematically savvy, which I’m not either, but let me see if I get this right. For instance, say that something worked 1 out of 100 people. If they found something in the study that worked 2 out of 100 people, that would be 100% increase, correct?

Mike: Right, right.

Kevin: OK.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: So, they could say that whatever it was, in the new study, improved
success rate by 100%.

Mike: Exactly, exactly. And you can take like mammograms, which is a big scam;
you take two groups, say a quarter of a million people in each group. This is no lie because this is exactly how it works. The people who had regular mammograms, say three people got breast cancer who had regular mammograms. Say four people got breast cancer of those who did not have mammograms. Well, instead of looking at the population of 225,000 in each group, they’re taking the difference between three people and four people and saying that’s a 25% reduction in breast cancer occurrence because of mammography.

Kevin: Wow.

Mike: In fact, if you take the full million people, or half-million people, three
people with the mammogram group and four got breast cancer with the non-mammogram group, that’s nothing. That’s just .000000000. But they are saying a 25% reduction in breast cancer because of mammograms. That is just a bald-faced lie. There’s been a lot published on this, but you’ll never see it on the mainstream news. You just won’t.

Kevin: Wow, when you hear 25% reduction, I mean, that’s 1 out of 4.

Mike: Yeah, that’s impressive. I go onto the film and I say, I can’t remember the
exact numbers, but these are real. You have to say, “What are the actual benefits of mammograms?” Well, a woman in her 40s who gets regular mammograms is going to live nine extra days. A woman in her 50s, she’ll live like 7 extra days. A woman in her 60s, will live five extra days.

Something like that; it’s in the film. And so you look at this and you throw everything out about these relative statistics and then you go and say, “Well, what are the benefits? This is supposed to prolong my life.” The benefits aren’t there at all.

Kevin: What was it like speaking to the oncologists?

Mike: They were hostile. They’re making their living off of this. I tell you, uniformly, they love Part One, except for the statistical part. That’s the one part they did not like because they didn’t really understand it. These are the people who are administering these ineffective drugs. I mean, I had one guy… Hodgkin’s is their claim to fame. The American Cancer Society in their facts and figures book will say it’s got an 85% cure rate.

Well, that’s nonsense. That’s a relative statistic. If you look at the absolute number, it’s about 40%. It’s even worse than that, but they don’t understand that. They will tell their patients, “Yeah, it’s got an 85% cure rate.” Well, they’re thinking 85 people out of 100 are going to be cured from this. Whereas, in fact, it’s 40 and this is their best. Hodgkin’s is their very best treatment. But what they don’t say is that that’s a five- year cure rate. What happens after five years? Well, the cures start dropping precipitously with Hodgkin’s and other diseases, the lymphomas where they have the, their leukemia’s where they have the fairly high success right with childhood leukemia’s. But what happens is that over time, the cancers come back, they get other problems because of the treatments. They’ve got liver disease, they could die of liver failure and all kinds of other things that go beyond this five-year period. And that really skews it downward.

To read the rest of this transcript for free as well as access a full archive of information by health experts on abundance, optimum health, and longevity just like Mike Anderson, please visit… for a free 30 day trial.

Buzz up!9 votes
StumbleUpon it

About the author
Kevin Gianni is a health advocate, author and speaker. He has helped thousands of people in over 85 countries learn how to take control of their health–and keep it. To view his popular internet TV Show “The Renegade Health Show” (and get a free gift!) with commentary on natural health issues, vegan and raw food diets, holistic nutrition and more click here.



Breast Cancer Industry A Scam? Support Education, Not Medication

November 22, 2008

Breast Cancer Industry A Scam? Support Education, Not Medication
This is the second annual publication of NaturalNews’s “Education, Not Medication” program designed to teach women the truth about how to prevent and even cure breast cancer. This disease is 90 percent preventable, mostly using completely free therapies. The breast cancer industry does not want women to be made aware of these free therapies because most of the better-known non-profits in the area of breast cancer are, themselves, dependant on revenues from the companies that profit from the disease.

The breast cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women who receive breast cancer treatments. With nearly all breast cancer nonprofits being subjugated by drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer drugs like Herceptin, there’s hardly a message heard about breast cancer today that doesn’t have a profit motive behind it.

“Breast cancer has been transformed into a market-driven industry. It has become more about making money for corporate sponsors than funding innovative ways to treat breast cancer.” – Health Studies researcher Samantha King, author of Pink Ribbons Inc.

The emphasis on breast cancer “screening,” and the circus of holding breast cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, “You’ll die in six months if you don’t undergo chemotherapy…”), the breast cancer industry manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually harm far more women than they help. New research, for example, shows that certain classes of chemotherapy drugs are so dangerous to human health that they cause heart failure in many women who use them. The drugs are called anthracyclines, and the research was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (October, 2007).

Chemotherapy is so dangerous to the heart, liver, kidneys and brain that the very act of screening for cancer tumors with mammography machines ultimately causes harm to most patients. Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of breast cancer screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by breast cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary treatments that devastated their health.

“What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always scientifically or medically sound”, said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the center. “So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from screening for breast cancer.” You can read more about that story at

In other words, breast cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women. That’s partly because the procedure itself irradiates the breast tissue and actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments even when they never had breast cancer in the first place. (False positives are extremely common in breast cancer screening, and in some cases, the machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn’t even meet radiology standards.)

Preventing prevention
And yet breast cancer screening is the only form of “prevention” offered by the cancer industry. But it isn’t prevention, it’s detection. Breast cancer screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent breast cancer, nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that breast cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get cancer, then treating it with toxic drugs that just happen to generate huge profits for pharmaceutical companies.

While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage breast cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical demands and toss them into chemotherapy — a treatment that causes permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other organs.

Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple changes in food and lifestyle. That number is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple food and lifestyle changes. Yet no one in the cancer industry seems interested in teaching any of these strategies to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how to avoid breast cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer! Billions of dollars in revenue are at stake here, and the cancer industry is banking on the continuation of this disease among the population.

That’s why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble effort to teach women how to prevent their own breast cancer through scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D, which has recently been shown to prevent an astonishing 77 percent of ALL cancers!) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.

The cancer industry depends on more cancer
The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions. Ever wonder why? It’s because the livelihood of the industry depends on more cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry operators depend entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the population.

Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, “Anti-Cancer Centers?” You see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it’s named the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are usually for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a woman’s disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on the continuation of cancer to stay in business.

That’s why there’s no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent breast cancer. There’s no program in place to teach women about the anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning people about sunlight!), there’s no honest effort to teach women about the natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry detergent, cosmetics and personal care products. Recent research shows that even air fresheners are contaminated with phthalates, and new details about cancer-causing chemicals in household products seem to emerge every week.

But when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to prevent breast cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they’re running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures. They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more money!

Women raising money for cancer industry non-profit groups makes about as much sense as Jews raising money for Hitler. The cancer industry is exploiting these women, using their bodies to generate profits!

It’s time to teach genuine cancer prevention to women
The cancer industry has been getting away with this scam for years, but I say enough is enough. It’s time to declare, “The Emperor has no clothes!” and that the best way to help protect the lives of women is to teach them how to avoid breast cancer rather than waiting for them to get it.

And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness about the things that cause breast cancer vs. the things that prevent breast cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.

I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It’s wrong to profit from a woman’s cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping cancer, they’d refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money to help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that matter).

What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent cancer…

If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the breast cancer industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to save their reputation, so they’ll start running tiny “prevention” campaigns to save face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big business, and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman’s body, not protecting it from cancer.

“[The cancer industry is] a market-driven industry that feeds off breast cancer survivors.” – Health Studies researcher Samantha King, author of Pink Ribbons Inc.

The real answers to breast cancer prevention
Here, for the benefit of women everywhere, is a partial list of the things that cause cancer and things that don’t. You’re not going to find full descriptions and citations here, as that would require an entire book all by itself, but this is a very useful reference list that tells the truth about what causes or prevents cancer in the human body.

18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order)

* Smoking cigarettes
* Mammography radiation – see articles on mammograms
* Chemotherapy and radiation
* Perfumes and fragrance products
* Cosmetics and personal care products – see articles on personal care products
* Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets, etc.
* Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products
* Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids – See Poison In the Food or articles on hydrogenated oils
* Plastic food containers – includes plastic lining inside food cans
* Sodium nitrite – found in most processed meats, see articles on sodium nitrite
* Pesticides, PCBs, chlorine and other chemicals
* Acrylamides (formed during high-heat food processing such as frying)
* Watching television / lack of exercise
* Severe emotional distress or relationship stress
* Refined sugars / refined grains
* Dry cleaning chemicals
* Hair color chemicals
* Nail polish remover

22 things that PREVENT cancer:

* Vitamin D and sunshine – see the Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D
* Anti-cancer foods – see articles about anti-cancer foods
* Medicinal mushrooms – reishi, shiitake, agaricus blazei, etc. See or
* Green tea – see articles about green tea
* Broccoli and cruciferous vegetables – see articles about broccoli
* Lycopene and tomatoes
* Infra-red saunas and sweat lodges – because sweating expels toxins
* Chlorella – see articles on chlorella, or check out a recommended chlorella product: Rejuvenate! From (product to be launched soon)
* Pomegranate seeds – see artiles on pomegranate or
* Omega-3 oils / chia seeds – available from
* Rainforest herbs – There are many anti-cancer rainforest herbs, including graviola and Cat’s Claw (Una de Gato). Recommended sources is Terry Pezzi of the high-integrity Amazon Herb Company (also helping to preserve the Amazon rainforest) – Another great source of rainforest herbs is Rain Tree with Leslie Taylor
* Juice detoxification – Read books by Dr. Gabriel Cousens or visit his retreat in Southern Arizona
* Acupuncture – helps move blood and chi (body’s energy)
* Sprouts – ALL sprouts are anti-cancer. Best sprouting machine is the EasyGreen Automatic Sprouter (use any search engine to find resellers)
* Red clover – Helps cleanse the blood. Find from any supplement maker.
* Deep breathing / oxygenation / stress reduction – Best product is called Stress Eraser (highly recommended)
* Yoga, Tai Chi or Pilates – These all boost lymph circulation
* Cacao – (real chocolate) – Good sources are or
* Therapeutic massage – helps move lymph, boost circulation
* Mint – grow your own (the easiest plant to grow)
* Apricot pits / laetrile / vitamin B17 – View this World Without Cancer video featuring G. Edward Griffin
* Blackberries – Most berries contain some form of anti-cancer medicine

The cancer industry attacks nearly all genuine cancer solutions
After examining this list, it’s not difficult to notice something quite curious: The cancer industry promotes many things that cause cancer while attacking most things that prevent cancer. Naturopathic doctors who once prescribed laetrile for cancer patients, for example, have been run out of the country or arrested. Herbal product companies have been censored to such a degree that none dare tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their own products, and even broccoli growers and marketers are scared into remaining silent about the remarkable, scientifically-proven anti-cancer effects of broccoli.

In other words, if you want to know what the cancer industry supports or attacks, just check to see which list it’s on. If it’s on the list of things that prevent cancer, the cancer industry (including most of its doctors, oncologists, non-profits and government regulators) will be against it. If it’s on the list of things that cause cancer, they will likely promote it. The cancer industry, you see, isn’t interested in stopping cancer. It depends on the disease!

The exception to this is, of course, tobacco. That’s a substance that doctors once gladly promoted in magazine advertisements, claiming that smoking was good for your health and even improved your teeth! But today, the tobacco scam has long since been revealed, and even conventional medicine is now squarely against this substance that they once strongly promoted.

The American Medical Association, by the way, used to actually run ads for cigarettes in its flagship medical journal, JAMA. Doctors can always be bought off and made to promote whatever poison is making the most money this decade (these people have no shame). In the 1950’s, it was cigarettes. Today, it’s pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. Different drugs, same scam. But money was always — and IS always — the bottom line for conventional medicine. Today, doctors promote chemotherapy, which is far more toxic than smoking!