Nexus - 0905 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence. Research has warned: "Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication "The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, of any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry the main obstacle, why today's most widespread diseases are fur- which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified ther expanding, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high failure and by others as a complete fraud.""* blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis and many others. Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure diseases. Mammography and the Spread of Breast Cancer According to health insurers, over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs Thanks go to Dr Tim O'Shea for the following very important are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven thera- information on the practice of mammography: peutic value. (AOK Magazine, 4/98) "This is one topic where the line between advertising and scien- "According to medical doctors' associations, the known danger- tific proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the ous side-effects of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth | American Cancer Society itself and its government colleague, the leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes. National Cancer Institute, terminated the routine use of mammog- (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998) raphy for women under the age of 50 because of its ‘detrimental’ "Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in twice. A major portion of their income is used up to finance the Canada found that women who had routine mammograms before exploding profits of the pharmaceutical the age of 50 also had increased death rates industry. In return, they are offered a medi- from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) cine that does not even cure." "Lorraine Day notes the same findings in Dr Rath is currently spearheading the fight her video presentation, Cancer Doesn't against the pharmaceutical industries as they Scare Me Any More. The reader is directed wk ent gaint es afte | The next time you are | ' hss sues and siold thn consi passed, it will directly affect you in many asked to donate toa ing the procedure, before making a decision. mins forallorg right now and'sign the pet | CaNCer Organisation, | 1 review of pertinent iterature on mane tion. It will only take 30 seconds and is so bear in mind that your mograms. He points out that the US$5-13 important. And such is the nature of the A billion per year generated by mammograms information still to come on this site, I have money will be used controls the information that women get. every confidence that you will be right back! to sustain an industry Fear and incomplete data are the tools com- Writing in the UK Guardian on February 7, 2002, senior health editor Sarah Bosely reported: "Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles, endorsing new medicines, that they have not written— a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy." These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say. Said one physician in the article: monly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumour is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is there- fore ridiculous to advertise mammogra- phy as ‘early detection’. (McDougall, p. 114) "The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast can- "What day is it today? I'm just work- cer, which they don't. On the contrary, ing out what drug I'm supporting the painful compression of breast tissue today." during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metasta- From top to bottom, 21st century medicine is being bought and sis by as much as 80%! Dr McDougall notes that between 10% taught to think of all medical treatment in terms of pharmaceutical and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting, non-life- intervention only. threatening type called ‘ductal carcinoma in situ'. This harmless While the politicking and big business string-pulling is taking cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine place behind the scenes, our minds are being washed with the mammography. (McDougall, p. 105) which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others as a complete fraud. constant froth of emotive, unfounded, pro-establishment, populist "Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from headlines such as: "Another breakthrough at UCLA!..." (Yes, routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available lit- but with mice!) "It's in the genes!" (Another £5 million now will erature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs Wright help us to isolate the gene in 2010...perhaps.) "Excitement at lat- and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended est oncology findings!" (Buoyant opening paragraph, descending the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening into the usual mixture of hope extinguished by caution and the because the 'benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is obligatory appeal to the pocket.) "Cancer vaccine close!" (Yes, substantial’. (Lancet, July 1, 1995) and close since 1975, actually. But please, continue to give gen- "The harm they're referring to includes the constant worrying erously, because next time it could be you!) and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary And so it goes on. And all the while, the mortality statistics procedures and testing to be done, based on results which have a worsen. Yet still, the money—our money—just keeps on rolling false positive rate as high as 50%." (New York Times, December in. On that note, the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical 14, 1997)'* Research has warned: "The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others as a complete fraud.""* The next time you are asked to donate toa cancer organisation, bear i in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry _ by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others as a complete fraud. NEXUS = 27 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2002 www.nexusmagazine.com