If you think cancer “experts” are hiding
September 1st, 2013 by Holly Cornish
Cancer researchers pride themselves on making great strides toward finding the causes and treatments for cancer.
And as they’re supposed to in professional medical journals, they publish details about the problems they’re addressing… the methodologies they use… the type of people who take part in the studies… the conclusions they reach…
Or do they?
Drink This and Cancer
“If I could pick only one treatment to cure my cancer, this would be it,” says a top expert on alternative cancer treatments.
Research conducted by a scientist at the Detroit Institute of Cancer Research showed this is one of the world’s most powerful cancer cures. Even the mainstream National Cancer Institute confirmed that this do-it-yourself treatment kills cancer cells. Then they buried the research.
Personally, I’ve been writing about cancer treatments for almost seven years. Out of nearly 400 that I’ve investigated, I haven’t found an at-home treatment that’s better.
It worked for Robert, age 54, who had late stage stomach cancer. His doctors told him he didn’t have chance. The most they could do was buy him a little time, using four aggressive chemotherapy drugs PLUS radiation — a deadly, toxic, last-ditch treatment.
INSTEAD Robert used this non-toxic liquid and was completely cancer-free within months. The amazed doctor was forced to admit Robert’s cancer was “in remission.” Two years later, he was still cancer-free.
Click the link below to watch an important video presentation about this discovery…
When it comes to investigating chemotherapy treatments, one group of researchers doesn’t think so.
This new finding comes from Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada. A team led by Ian F. Tannock, MD, FRCPC, PhD, scoured 164 journal articles published over 16 years and made this startling discovery:
The researchers were hiding information about
chemotherapy drug side effects!
The group published their results on Jan. 9, 2013 on the Annals of Oncology website. According to their research, not even one-third of reports on clinical trials for breast cancer chemotherapy medications contained detailed data on side effects and adverse drug events.
I don’t know about you… but I don’t believe for one second that any chemo cocktail could have been THAT good!
Not only were these breast cancer drug researchers underreporting side effects—but they also went out of their way to report more positive treatment outcomes.
In other words, these studies aren’t valid scientific reports. They’re disguised sales pieces for chemo drugs.
Think about what this means for cancer doctors and their patients…
Did someone call for a spin doctor?
Doctors are busy, just like most people. To stay current on the latest research, they don’t read entire journal articles. They tend to read abstracts – brief summaries provided at the top of the articles — to get the gist of the findings.
Dr. Tannock’s group found that two-thirds of the drug studies they examined don’t mention serious side effects in these summaries. This held true not only for chemotherapy studies but for cancer studies involving surgery and radiation as well.
The Canadian researchers found similar omissions in the discussion sections and results tables.
This means most doctors prescribing treatments are not aware of the full range of potential side effects. (Actually, the problem goes well beyond cancer drugs. Doctors spend little time educating patients about side effects for ANY prescription drug. It’s up to you to find out for yourself.)
The corrupt world of peer-reviewed journals
Dr. Tannock told Reuters about another disturbing trend they noticed in the studies they reviewed: Researchers for these breast cancer drug studies had a tendency to change the definition of success.
Specifically, Dr. Tannock said if a treatment didn’t produce stellar results, some researchers just choose a different set of results to report—regardless of whether the study was designed to test them.
Just so we’re clear… drug companies often provide the money to study the cancer concoctions they intend to market. So researchers are under pressure to produce glowing reports, or risk seeing research dollars disappear. Some may try to hang on to their virginity, but it seems the drug companies have no trouble finding scientists for sale.
I recently had a behind-the-scenes look at this world of peer-reviewed published research. Sometimes a big-name doctor’s name is listed among the authors even though he or she didn’t really do anything. A well-known doctor can supplement his income by lending his name to companies trying to get a scientific seal of approval on their products.
And lesser known, working scientists want their studies published in prestigious journals. If they frame their research in a positive light, it increases their chances for publication, additional grants, career promotion and tenure.
But this win-win deal for drug companies and the researchers who do their bidding is a sure loser for cancer patients who are kept in the dark about drug side effects.
One rotten egg that made it to market…
You’ve probably heard drug commercials that spend maybe 55 seconds describing the benefits—then in the last five seconds a fast-talking motor-mouth comes on, the volume is turned down, and they rattle off a quick list of warnings and side effects.
These are just the dangers that are so common they feel required to tell you about them. Imagine how long the commercial would be if they included unreported side effects!
The practice of underreporting bad effects helps explain how the drug Avastin® could have made its way to pharmacies.
In February 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave an accelerated approval to use Avastin in combination with the cancer drug paclitaxel to treat metastatic breast cancer.
Adding Avastin supposedly prevented angiogenesis — blood vessels growing on tumors to nourish them.
An FDA news release said the speedy approval was based on promising results from one study that suggested Avastin could extend a cancer patient’s life.
Avastin’s maker, Genentech, completed two additional clinical trials after the drug was approved and submitted data from those studies to the FDA. What did these results show?
- Minimal effect on tumor growth
- No evidence that patients lived any longer
- No indication that quality of life improved when compared to taking standard chemotherapy
In the end, the agency revoked Avastin’s approval for breast cancer treatment less than three years after approving it for that use.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg said, “After reviewing the available studies it is clear that women who take Avastin for metastatic breast cancer risk potentially life-threatening side effects without proof that the use of Avastin will provide a benefit in terms of delay in tumor growth that would justify those risks.”
And get a load of the side effects some women experienced during the time the drug was approved for use as a breast cancer treatment…
- Bleeding and hemorrhaging
- Heart attack and heart failure
- High blood pressure (severe)
- Perforations in the nose, stomach, intestines and other body parts
Before you think warm and fuzzy thoughts about the agency revoking its use as breast cancer treatment—remember it’s still on the market to treat other cancers.
What’s more, Dr. Hamburg actually invited Avastin’s drugmaker to TRY AGAIN stating, “I encourage Genentech to consider additional studies to identify if there are select subgroups of women suffering from breast cancer who might benefit from this drug.”
So much for problems in the drug industry. Unfortunately, the health food and supplement industry sometimes has problems of its own. One of the worst is soy — is it safe and effective, or not? This controversy has been simmering for years, and we delved into it to see if we could FINALLY come up with some definite answers. Scroll down to see what we found…
Could This Popular Health Food be
Secretly Poisoning Your Diet?
There’s a lot of controversy over whether eating soy is outright dangerous, especially for males. For one thing, it’s rich in phytoestrogens, which are plant estrogens that are similar to but not identical to human estrogens. Estrogens are female hormones. Generally speaking, you don’t want to eat them if you’re a male.
As to whether phytoestrogens are good for you, the answer you get depends on who you ask. [Grammarians: Please don’t write to tell me I should have said “whom”.] It’s very confusing and hard to figure out whether soy is healthy or toxic. We made up our minds to find out what’s what, and my research staff came up with some answers that are going to surprise you. . .
Why Most Health Foods are a Waste of Money
You can take vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants by the handful and still suffer poor health. Now we know why. Our diets lack a vital food — a type of nutrient that even alternative doctors don’t know about. Thanks to this supplement, a mother’s lifelong migraines disappeared, and a man with “terminal” kidney cancer was alive 15 years later. He’s just one of thousands of cancer patients who have taken this supplement and seen remarkable results.
There’s more: It’s one of the most popular pain relievers in Germany, used by that country’s Olympic team to help athletes get rid of pain and accelerate healing from sports injuries. It outperforms prescription blood clot drugs — in my opinion, patients should take this supplement instead of blood-thinning drugs like warfarin. And it even helps 9 out of 10 autistic children. The mother of a 7-year-old autistic child starting giving him this supplement after reading my Special Report The Missing Ingredient — and he started speaking after having been nonverbal his whole life!
How can ONE supplement possibly do all this? Just ask yourself: What if you were getting NO vitamins in your diet? You’d be very sick. This nutrient is just as important and you’re getting almost none. Read more here about The Missing Ingredient, and consider trying it yourself.
Some authorities believe soy plays no role in cancer, and particularly hormone-related cancers (like estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer). Others point to animal studies suggesting that genistein, a main isoflavone in soy, actually promoted breast cancer growth.
Then along came further research showing that rats and mice metabolize phytoestrogens like genistein differently than humans, so the whole question is up in the air again.
Scientists in the past have said eating soy actually protects you from diseases like cancer, but most of those studies have been observational. In other words, researchers collect diet information from individuals and follow them for several years to see who develops cancer and who doesn’t.
But as with any observational study, it could be that the connection between lower cancer risk and soy is due to an overlooked factor related to eating soy, particularly since people who eat soy might be more likely to exercise and eat more vegetables. The exercise and all the other healthy foods that soy eaters eat might offset the bad effects (if any) of eating soy.
Observational studies are prone to error because they don’t get at cause and effect. All they can do is point out that “people who have characteristic X also tend to have characteristic Y.” A classic example occurred decades ago when a big observational study seemed to indicate that people who drink coffee are more likely to get cancer and heart disease. It turned out it wasn’t the coffee. Heavy coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke, and it was smoking that brought on the diseases.
One study says don’t, others say do…
We all know prostate cancer is serious business, particularly in the U.S. where one in six men will develop the disease during his lifetime. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, eclipsed only by lung cancer.
For years, men with prostate cancer or even the likelihood of developing prostate cancer have been told to eat soy products. Part of that thinking comes from laboratory studies that show soy contains substances with anti-cancer properties, including isoflavones.
Another part of the pro-soy logic stems from what’s been observed in Asia, where soy is a constant in the diet starting at birth. Prostate cancer rates there are much lower than in the U.S., though it does raise the question of whether soy consumption early in life plays a role or whether it’s possible to begin a healthy soy regimen at a later age. It also raises the same questions as any observational study: Asians do a lot of things differently than Americans. How do we know it’s soy that causes them to enjoy lower prostate cancer rates?
The thing is, there’s no hard evidence that soy keeps prostate cancer at bay. And now there’s a new study that throws even more cold water on the idea. According to Dr. Maarten Bosland, professor of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead researcher in a recent soy study, daily consumption of soy after surgery for prostate cancer “does not reduce the risk of recurrence.”
The study led by Bosland and published in the July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included over 150 men with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Each had undergone a radical prostatectomy, which didn’t remove all the cancer cells.
Each of the men was assigned to drink either a powdered soy protein drink or a placebo beverage every day for two years. At the end of the study, no significant difference between the two groups could be found in terms of cancer recurrence. Just over a quarter of the men in each group had prostate cancer recurrence within two years.
Dr. Bosland says soy is still safe to take and that it has no adverse side effects, but some studies say otherwise. According to other authoritative figures, like Dr. Anthony D’Amico, chief of radiation oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, soy supplementation brings no harm and may offer a benefit. Dr. D’Amico advises against using the recent study—which he says was quite small—as evidence that people should stop eating soy for health benefits.
The multiple hazards of soy consumption
Another unsolved puzzle is whether soy foods play a different role in the body than do soy supplements. Some say straight soy beats supplements any day, while others point to the shocking prevalence of GMO soy. And if you follow anything GMO-related, you know that it never leads to good news or healthy outcomes. Several reports say as much as 99 percent of soy has been genetically modified, and most soybean plants are treated with a high level of pesticides.
Does that mean organic soy is the way to go? Possibly, but here are some more soy-related facts that should give you pause.
- Soy is high in something called phytic acid, which blocks the absorption of minerals like calcium and magnesium. That’s one reason third-world countries with grain- and legume-based diets (and thus high phytic acid levels) tend to have widespread mineral deficiencies.
- Soybeans have toxins that are so powerful, they’re not destroyed during cooking. Many of the toxins are known as enzyme inhibitors, which complicate your ability to digest protein. In one study, animals that consumed enzyme inhibitors ended up developing pancreatic problems, including pancreatic cancer. Yikes!
- Soy products tend to have higher-than-normal levels of aluminum, which is known to have negative health effects. It comes from aluminum tanks where the beans are washed and heat-treated. I don’t think this is a major worry, but I toss it out there for your consideration.
This brings us back to the Asia question, and why Asian cultures have been safely consuming soy for thousands of years. One theory is that they only began soy consumption after they figured out how to ferment it; before that, they avoided soybeans because of the toxins.
Fermentation makes the nutrients in soy more available on a biological level while destroying their natural toxins. Fermented soy foods include natto, miso, and tempeh. But the downside to those foods is that they’re high in sodium. Again, I don’t feel this is a major worry, but if you think you’re salt sensitive, you need to know it.
The evidence I’ve seen for fermented soy is highly favorable. I see it as healthy food to eat, with benefits in treating and preventing a variety of diseases including cancer and heart disease. For more on this, check out our Issue #88.
When in doubt, don’t eat it
Other than fermented, soy is a minefield. I don’t eat it — in defiance of my integrative doctor, a smart man who continues to believe soy is a healthy food. It’s just about impossible to reach any definite conclusions about it. That’s enough reason to avoid it.
Resources from 1st article:
DiVita, L. 2009. The side effects of Avastin. Livestrong website. Retrieved from
Food and Drug Administration. 2011. FDA Commissioner announces Avastin decision. Available online at
Lamb, E. 2013. Are Chemo Side Effects Underreported in Breast Cancer Drug Trials? About.com: Pharmacy. Retrieved from
Oransky, I. 2013. Cancer studies often downplay chemo side effects: study. Reuters. Retrieved from
References from 2nd article:
“Newest Research On Why You Should Avoid Soy.” by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. Mercola: Health Articles.
“Soyfoods & Cancer.” By Lindsey Getz, Today’s Dietitian, Vol. 15 No. 4 P. 30.
“Soy and Hormone Related Cancers.” By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, on behalf on the ON DPG, Oncology Nutrition.
“Soy products linked to cancer in lab tests.” By Zach C. Miller, Natural News, 16 July 2013.
“Soy Won’t Prevent Prostate Cancer’s Return: Study.” By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay. WebMD, Prostate Cancer News.
“What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?” American Cancer Society: Prostate Cancer.