I am absolutely stunned when I review cancer research reports on the internet that are made public. When a new natural nutrient is found that is proven to kill cancer cells or stop the spread of cancer, do they ask whether this nutrient can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? Of course not. The first question that is asked is this: "how can we mutate and synthesize this nutrient, patent it, and make it into a profitable drug?"
Ponder that last paragraph carefully because it is the heart and soul of modern medicine. Find a natural substance that cures something, bury this fact, then fabricate, synthesize, and mutate the key natural substance, then patent the mutation, and make huge profits. That is why there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, no one is looking because they cannot be patented and thus are not profitable enough.
As an example, consider this quote:
- "The first development in this research using chemically altered DIM [diindolylmethane, a natural compound derived from certain vegetables] from broccoli came when the growth of breast cancer cells was inhibited in laboratory studies. Subsequent research showed these compounds also inhibited growth of pancreatic, colon, bladder and ovarian cancer cells in culture, Safe said. Limited trials on lab mice and rats have produced the similar results, he noted.
Safe said the research began by considering compounds that protect a person from developing cancer. After a stream of articles from other researchers extolling the scientific evidence that cruciferous vegetables prevent cancer, Safe and his team wondered whether the similar compounds could be developed for treatment of cancer. They looked at the mechanism – how the compounds block cancer cell growth – and found that they target PPAR gamma, a protein that is highly active in fat cells. This same PPAR gamma is over-expressed in many tumors and tumor cells and is a potential target for new drugs, he said. Safe's lab chemically modified "natural" DIM to give a series of compounds that target the PPAR gamma and stop the growth of cancer."
Wait a minute - why "modify" a natural substance that works perfectly well? Why not research how this natural substance can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? The answer is that it is not profitable enough.
If you are accounting savvy, consider this: because of patents, Big Pharma can charge any price they want to for a drug. This means that when they calculate the price of a drug they can first take into account how much it will cost them to bribe Congressmen, bribe public officials, control the media, control the AMA, control the ACS, pay "gifts" to individual doctors, etc. In other words, they can first calculate their expected costs for these things, then come up with a price for their drugs.
Do you want to know the mark-up of some common drugs? The Commerce Department did and came up with some interesting numbers:
Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%
Norvasc 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%
Prevacid 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%
Big Pharma claims that these prices are necessary for them to continue with their expensive research. No so. Most of their mark-up is designed to cover other costs, such as lobbyists and advertising.
Now let's go back and talk about the Budwig cancer diet, which used two Nobel Prize discoveries in its development. It seems that modern medicine, with their billions of dollars of "research" money has not yet found a way to safely and inexpensively use these two Nobel Prize discoveries of the 1930s. But Johanna Budwig, by herself, was able to cure cancer with the two discoveries. Here is another question: "Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry and medical community are willing to forgo many billions of dollars of annual profits by looking for a safe and inexpensive way to use these discoveries?"
The FDA and "Scientific Evidence"
As mentioned above, Congress has designed the FDA to be the goon squad for Big Pharma. Whatever Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma gets.
This is not to say that all of the employees of the FDA are people of low integrity. I am sure many of the low-level FDA employees are people of high integrity and are truly people oriented. Such people have no future at the FDA.
This is because our two "festering in corruption" political parties make sure that whoever is in the White House does not accidentally appoint someone with a moral conscience to head the FDA. In other words, in order to be a top person in the FDA, especially those involved with profitable drugs, you must be willing to sell-out to Big Pharma.
Let us consider for a moment, the approval of the chemotherapy drug Iressa. I am quoting from the FDA web site:
"Accelerated approval is a program the FDA developed to make new drug products available for life threatening diseases when they appeared to provide a benefit over available therapy (which could mean there was no existing effective treatment). Under this program, Iressa is approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence (such as tumor shrinkage) suggesting that the drug is reasonably likely to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms. The approval is granted on the condition that the manufacturer must continue testing to demonstrate that the drug indeed provides therapeutic benefit [i.e. tumor shrinkage] to the patient. If it does not, the FDA can withdraw the product from the market more easily than usual.
How many clinical trials were performed with Iressa and what did they show? The study on which FDA based it approval included 216 patients 139 of whom had failed treatment with two other chemotherapy treatments. In this trial, approximately 10% of patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.
The sponsor also presented to FDA the results of two large (about 1000 patients each) clinical studies with Iressa as initial therapy for lung cancer. In these studies all patients received, standard combination chemotherapy and were randomly given, in addition, either Iressa or a placebo. In these studies there was no effect of Iressa on survival [versus the placebo], time to further growth of cancer, or on tumor size." (underscore added)
FDA at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/iressa/iressaQ&A.htm
In other words, in two large studies this drug demonstrated absolutely no increase in survival of cancer patients. It was approved because in a trial of only 216 patients, only 10% of the patients had a decrease in tumor size (which is a symptom of cancer).
On the other hand, Dr. Kelley had 33,000 patients with a 93% cure rate!! How come the FDA has not approved his treatment? Dr. Gonzalez is duplicating part of Kelley's treatment, but the New York state medical society has put a gag order on his research.
Now lets do the math. 216 patients, 10% had lower tumor size (compared to a different combination of chemotherapy drugs). 33,000 patients, a 93% CURE RATE. The FDA approved Iressa and the Cancer Industry threw Kelley in jail and kicked him out of the country. What is wrong with this picture?
Because the FDA requires a study controlled by Big Pharma in order to approve a drug, why doesn't one of the pharmaceutical companies do an honest study using Dr. Kelley's full treatment on newly diagnosed cancer patients, and submit the results (which would be at least a 93% cure rate) to the FDA? Take a guess.
This is critical to understand, Big Pharma will not submit a drug to the FDA unless it is very, very profitable. The next thing to understand is that the FDA will not approve any drug, or other substance, unless it is studied under the control of Big Pharma.
Let's logically combine the above statements into one statement: The FDA will never consider, thus will never approve, any substance unless it is very, very profitable to Big Pharma.
In fact, that is exactly the way it is. Big Pharma first decides what products can be considered by the FDA, and then it submits only those products. In essence, the FDA has no control (by its own choice) over what substances are considered for approval. Only Big Pharma is allowed to decide what is considered for approval.
Let's take this a step further. The FDA does not consider that there is any "scientific evidence" for a treatment unless they have approved it!! In other words, there is no possible way that there can be any "scientific evidence" (according to the government's definition) unless a drug is very, very profitable to Big Pharma. Only things submitted to the FDA by Big Pharma can be considered to have "scientific evidence."
Do you see what is going on here? The reason there is no official "scientific evidence" for alternative cancer treatments is that they are not highly profitable to Big Pharma. It is impossible, by law, for a substance to be considered to have "scientific evidence," unless Big Pharma submits it to the FDA, and they will only submit things that are very, very profitable to them.
Thus, the many thousands of studies of natural substances that have cured or treated cancer, are not "scientific evidence," and they are ignored by our government, because they were not done under the control of Big Pharma. Quite a racket!! Big Pharma makes the tobacco industry look like amateurs!!
Thus, when quackwatch, the ACS, the NCI, WebMD, etc. claim that there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, it is nothing but a lie and a smoke screen, fabricated by Congress and its stepchild the FDA. These people have absolutely no interest in human life or "scientific truth." Their interest is money.
I can guarantee the reader, in all soberness, that there are more than 150 alternative cancer treatments that are far more effective than ANY and ALL orthodox treatments for cancer currently in use. All of these treatments have been suppressed, and many of them have been destroyed, by orthodox medicine. See my list of over 200 alternative treatments:
Since all "scientific evidence" must come from big corporations, what is the reputation of big corporations for doing medical studies?
Well, do you remember the 1,500 studies, done over a period of 42 years, that were funded by the Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A? These "studies" couldn't find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer!!
Do you remember the 74 studies that were funded by Big Pharma to "study" whether aspartame causes any health problems? These "studies" coudn't find anything wrong with aspartame.
Big Pharma studies on radiation, chemotherapy, etc. are just as bogus because they only compare one toxic sludge to another toxic sludge, even when studying length of life. However, these same types of studies are also used to study treating the SYMPTOMS of cancer.
In short, if a study is funded or controlled (e.g. a government funded study) by Big Pharma, or any other giant corporation, it is a worthless, bogus, misleading, etc. study.
Yet, that is the ONLY type of study the FDA will accept and it is the ONLY type of study that will lead to the designation of "scientific evidence"!!
The thousands of honest studies, which are not in any way controlled by Big Pharma, are not eligible for the designation of "scientific evidence" because they do not lead to Big Profits for Big Pharma. Likewise, the cure rates of alternative doctors, such as Kelley and Binzel, are not eligible for the designation of "scientific evidence," instead the people involved with these studies are persecuted.
It is apparent that "scientific evidence" has absolutely nothing to do with "scientific truth."
Yet, as I will now show, this concept is absolutely critical to Big Pharma's Big Plan.