Lymphoma Twenty Years Ago, Still Alive and Healthy! Is that quackery and “scientifically unproven”?

JO, a 69-year-old Malaysian lady came to seek our advice after being diagnosed with melanoma (skin cancer). She was accompanied by her husband and son. As usual, my first question to them was,Who asked you to come here?JO replied,My daughter! She is a medical doctor. She has been pushing me to come and see as soon as possible.

JO’s problem started with a small, flat mole on her back that started to grow bigger. A biopsy was done and the mole removed. It was malignant. Another surgery was done to remove a wider margin. Then, after surgery what follows? Go for chemo or herbs?

I am curious. Why must a medical doctor think of sending her mother to a herbalist?

Here is the answer. About twenty years ago JO and many members of her family (including her daughter) came to our centre because JO’s sister — OGK — had lymphoma. She refused to undergo chemotherapy and opted for our therapy.

Listen to this video.

What can we learn from this story?

Lesson one. Is OGK still alive? Yes — very much alive! She is now 85 years old and is still healthy. Not long along OGK visited Penang and even visited Penang Hill. Meaning, she could still travel and lead a normal life. Generally patients are told that if you don’t do chemo for your cancer, you die! You would not make it to 1 or 2 years, let alone 20 years!

I told JO. Many patients came to see us. After some time, we never get to see them. My assumption is that all of them have died. Those who get well after taking our herbs do not come back to say “hello” to us. Since I don’t get to see them again, I assume that they too have died! Thanks OJ for coming back to share this amazing story of your sister!

Lesson two. How does her medical doctor daughter come into the picture? JO said she also came to our center when her auntie was ill at that time. So she had “learned” from this experience that our herbs did a lot of good to her auntie. Meaning this was a “real, teaching lesson” for her. Unfortunately, they don’t teach such things in medical school.

Lesson three. Often we read or hear people say that those who refuse medical treatment for their cancer and opted for alternative therapy are people with low health literacy (and) are often unable to discern between scientifically proven or anecdotal based therapies.

What does this phrase mean? Probably that is a polite way of saying,You must be stupid and real dumb for not going for chemotherapy or radiotherapy! You don’t even know how to differentiate between a proven and scientific therapy from just-a-story-based therapy which is unproven.

Well, I leave it up to you what you want to make out of such a statement. But from my years of experience, I believe that those who come to us are the “empowered” patients. They have seen or heard what these so-called scientific and proven therapies like chemo or radiotherapy did to their family members or friends. Many suffered and many more died after having to pay a “bomb” for these treatments. No, they are not stupid or dumb.

Read this book, it has an interesting title:

Then you may wish to read what others say about this so called proven scientific method of treating cancer:

Chemotherapy warning as hundreds die from cancer-fighting drug.

Patients should be warned about the dangers of chemotherapy after research showed that cancer drugs are killing up to 50 per cent of patients in some hospitals.

For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.

Professor David Cameron, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland, said:

I think it’s important to make patients aware that there are potentially life threatening downsides to chemotherapy. And doctors should be more careful about who they treat with chemotherapy.
The concern is that some of the patients dying within 30 days of being given chemo probably shouldn’t have been given the chemo.

When Treating Cancer Is Not an Option

When my husband learned he had advanced lung cancer, he didn’t even want to speak to an oncologist about chemotherapy. He saw no point in treatment that could not cure him and might make him feel worse.

Most patients with these so-called stage 4 cancers who choose to undergo chemotherapy seem to believe, incorrectly, that the drugs could render them cancer-free. That is the finding of a recent national study of nearly 1,200 patients with advanced cancers of the lung or colon. Overall, 69 percent of those with stage 4 lung cancer and 81 percent of those with stage 4 colon cancer failed to understand “that chemotherapy was not at all likely to cure their cancer,” Dr. Jane C. Weeks, an oncology researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston..

In an editorial accompanying the journal report, Dr. Thomas J. Smith and Dr. Dan L. Longo pointed out that “people have an optimistic bias.” Despite a grim prognosis, this bias prompts patients to believe treatment can cure them.

“Our job is not to force them into acceptance but to encourage them to plan for the worst while hoping for the best,” Dr. Smith said. “Such patients have better outcomes — less depression and less distress, and they’re more likely to die comfortably at home.”

Scientists: we will never find a cure for cancer

If all the positive cancer breakthrough headlines are to be believed, then the cure for cancer is right around the corner. But that is a far cry from reality, says Dr. Jørgen Olsen, head of research at The Danish Cancer Society.

“I think it’s an illusion to imagine that after millions of years of this disease we’ll suddenly find a solution. I don’t think that we’ll ever beat it, but I think that we’ll get it under control so that it becomes chronic but not deadly,” says Olsen.

Prominent cancer researcher, Mads Daugaard from the Molecular Pathology & Cell Imaging Laboratory at the University of British Colombia, Canada, agrees.

“We won’t find a cure, but we’ll probably reach a point where we have so many ways to attack cancer that people won’t die from it anymore,” says Daugaard.

But why can’t we find the secret weapon to beat cancer once and for all?

One reason is that cancer is not just one disease — even individual tumours can vary substantially from one patient to the next and the same type of tumour in different parts of the body can respond differently to medication.

Just like any other organism, cancer cells are trying to survive, and they are very good at it. They quickly spread to multiple parts of the body, and they mutate constantly, rendering existing medicines ineffective.

“Cancer cells are very adaptive, especially when the cancer is at an advanced stage,” says Olsen.

So what is the reality? When OGK came to seek our help and JO twenty years later, are they dumb or enlightened?

Ask this question: To be able to live a healthy life with lymphoma for twenty years without chemotherapy is still considered “unproven” and the evidence has no scientific value?

This healing story is not considered “scientifically proven” because the patient did not undergo chemotherapy! Also it is not published in peer-reviewed medical journal! You get the point?

Why Scientific Peer Review Is A Sham – how scientific is medical research?

by Brenda D Murphy

Source: https://globalfreedommovement.org/why-scientific-peer-review-is-a-sham/

Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry. Bruce Cathie in The Energy Grid.

An Australian physicist Brian Martin wrote: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/98jse.html

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests… Dissenters are not welcome.
Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If they gain some recognition or outside support, they may be attacked.
What do [scientists] have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.

The Problem of “Experts”

Scientists are prone — just like lay people — to being cathected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they have been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained accolades or financial remuneration as a result.

Scientists, like laypeople, have … hefty egos — partially due to their “expertise” and academic titles, qualifications, theories, etc.

Once those hefty egos — belonging to people generally known as “experts” — rise to positions of power and/or influence … too many become mere gatekeepers and seek not to facilitate innovation … but to maintain the status quo which got them there in the first place.

Dr Malcolm Kendrick wrote, in Doctoring Data:

By definition, anyone who is an ‘expert’ in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway.

The players with the deepest pockets have the funds to buy all of the “experts” they need to sell a bogus product or ideology to an unsuspecting public.

Students undergo a magical alchemical process as they proceed through educational institutions and emerge transformed from their chrysalis with their doctorates, masters, stethoscopes and equations. They are the Chosen Ones, the purified, the holy, the redeemed, the righteous. They do not have to answer to the lowly non-scientific peasantry – let alone unbelieving heretics.

Trusting “experts” in oncology, for example, is generally a very good way to artificially speed one’s trip to the grave, particularly if one has metastatic cancer (allopathic medicine is notoriously ineffective in that realm). And yet “experts” are now on a rarified level that perhaps only popes and celebrities can understand — they are virtually demigods today.

“Experts” are lionized because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established (and profitable) beliefs — and the media is complicit in this. If you want to be horribly misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to just about any mainstream news media outlet and listen to the establishment’s “experts.”

Is it not time to get the crusty, rigidified, and corrupt Old Guard out of the way so we can let science move forward?

Is Most Research Just Bullshit?

Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine ~ in Drug companies & doctors: A story of corruption.

Most “experts” in medicine are, psychologically speaking, simply engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises, vigorously affirming and defending their ego’s (lucrative) construction of the world.

Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment’s truths, narratives, and designated “experts” then researchers who yield findings deviating from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, fringe nuts, pseudo-scientists and so on.

The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment’s reality.

Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained.

Cash is king!

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth) wrote (http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/02/false_medical_research_shows_up_systemic_flaws.html):

The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants — collecting money and spending it — than to scientific imagination or creativity.

Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, wrote (The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7–9):

Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming

primarily a marketing machine and co-opting every institution that might stand in its way.

Richard Smith, was an editor for the British Medical Journal 25 years. He stepped down in July 2004. This was what he wrote:

Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

John Ionnidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine wrote (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, Plos Medicine, August 2005):

Most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields.

Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.

If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth — while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted — then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”?

What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?

In his article, What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015 Richard Horton wrote:

A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark … The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness … “poor methods get results”.

Corrupted Research – Exposing the Peer Review Process

by Dr. Sydney Singer

Source: https://www.academia.edu/9648245/Corrupted_Research_Exposing_the_Peer_Review_Process.

When you hear about new medical breakthroughs in the news, you will only hear about peer reviewed research. Peer reviewed means that it passed some sort of basic standards for quality. It is the gold standard of research. But is it real gold, or fool’s gold?

Medical research seems especially mystical and awe inspiring to the average person. The basic concepts of medicine … are deliberately cloaked in Latin terminology and other confusing jargon, making medical knowledge and theory seem out of reach to the common person.

After all, every profession needs to make you think you need their services. Lawyers make the legal system so complex and confusing that the average person is completely helpless without legal assistance.

Doctors have made it so you cannot request medical tests or take drugs without their prescription. You name a profession, and you can see ways it perpetuates itself by disempowering the public.

What about the medical research profession?

Researchers make their money usually from both salaries and grants. The job of the researcher is to find a sponsor for their special type of research. The more research projects and publications they get, the more sponsors they have, and the higher their income.

And if a researcher comes up with a patentable device or drug, there are intellectual property rights to throw into the compensation package. This means that researchers do not work for free. They are mercenary.

Most of the money for medical research comes from the private sector, usually drug companies, which is why drugs dominate modern medicine. They care much more about the treatment than the cause, since treatment is profitable for the research sponsors, while knowing the cause can lead to prevention, which translates in medical terminology into “unbillable”.

Since most people have been conditioned into believing that they cannot judge medical research unless they have a Ph.D., M.D., N.D., or other license, the research is evaluated for you by other scientists in the field. This is called peer review.

Scientists doing research, as with all professions, belong to a club of like-minded researchers in the same business, promoting their services and products. They belong to the same kinds of industries, such as universities or large multinational drug corporations. They have the same education, which means they all think alike.

The purpose of their organization is to provide standards of practice that are supposed to assure quality. Any research must first be somehow reviewed by the peers of this club to make sure the quality guidelines are met, before the research can be published.

Yet, despite this assurance of quality, the fact is that most of what is considered true today will be discarded as false in the future. “Ninety percent of what you learn in medical school will be out of date and considered obsolete in ten years,” we were told by the dean of students when I began medical school. This means that most of what doctors learn is wrong. It also means that the new information which will come in 10 years to replace and update current misconceptions and errors will also be considered obsolete in another ten years’ time.

… Most drug research is paid for by the companies that produce and profit from those same drugs. Even research testing drug side effect hazards is paid for by the companies standing to lose, big time, if their drugs are proven unsafe.

Since drug companies have their bottom line, and not unselfish service to mankind, … it is extremely unwise to trust them with research into their own products.

Researchers take no oaths of honesty or integrity. They work for whoever pays them, and they are not above fudging the results to get the desired outcome. This is not good science, of course.

Medical research is about making money coming up with newly patented drugs to replace the ones that have just gone off-patent and are being sold too cheaply by generic drug competitors.

Peer review also keeps out alternative theories and ways of doing research. All innovation threatens the status quo, and those who control the peer review process, like Supreme Court Justices, can decide on which cases to hear and which to ignore. They are gatekeepers of the status quo, which keeps the current powers that be in power.

Since the medical peer review boards are the culture’s final authority on quality, there is no way to challenge their decisions. Any researcher will tell you that lots of bad research is done that gets published.

Since researchers and their peers are all caught in this same publish or perish demand, and review one another’s work, they subtly collude to get as much research as they can funded and published. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours … there is overall an understanding that, as peers, united they stand and divided they fall.

Of course, this means that peer review is nothing more than a political arrangement for research workers, like a guild or union. It’s goal is to keep control over their field, suppress the competition, and assure continued cash flow. It has nothing to do with science.

So the next time you hear a news story about some new wonder drug, look for the union label. If it is peer reviewed, there’s a ninety percent chance it’s wrong.