Archive

Archive for February, 2011

The Ineffectiveness of Current Cancer Cures

February 27, 2011 Leave a comment

An article titled “Cancer Cure Search Detoured by Reality of Resilient Disease” appeared in the ‘Houston Chronicle’ in July, 2003. In it, writer Daniel G. Haney was courageous enough to state the actual state of affairs regarding the “War Against Cancer”. In it he brought out important, little-acknowledged facts concerning the current dismaying “prognosis” for a cure for cancer.

“Not long ago, the defeat of cancer seemed inevitable… no more chemotherapy, the thinking went. No more horrid side effects… Some now wonder whether malignancy will ever be reliably and predictably cured.

“The dearth of substantial impact so far suggests the fight against cancer wil continue to be a tedious slog, and victories will be scored in weeks or months of extra life, not years.

“… Several [drugs] have made it through testing, but despite their apparent bull’s-eye hits, lasting results are rare. Instead, these new drugs turn out to be about as effective – or as powerless – as old-line chemotherapy [ineffective long-term]. Aimed at the major forms of cancer, they work spectacularly for a lucky few and modestly for some. But for most? NOT AT ALL.

“… ‘It’s a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated’, says Dr. Leonard Saltz, a colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ‘It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time.’

“… scientists are even rethinking the goal of cancer research.

“”‘Society as a whole, and most of the medical profession, have a wrong understanding we’ll wake up one morning and find out cancer is cured. It won’t happen. The public should give it up,’ says Dr. Craig henderson, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of Access Oncology, a drug developer…’

*****

This was reported back in 2003. Nothing has changed since then.

For those of you who subscribe to the Medscape Today newsletter or visit the website and read the medical news on a daily basis (which you can get at http://www.medscape.com/medscapetoday), you will know that even though nearly 10 years have passed since the above information was published, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The FDA continues to allow Big Pharma to register their “blockbuster cancer drugs”, based on “potentially phenomenal results” (using weasel words like ‘may’, ‘possibly’, ‘have the potential to perhaps’, etc.), only to request further clinical trials due to ‘insufficient data’ showing the actual positive benefits compared to current cancer drugs already established in the market, or pull them all together due to their ineffectiveness.

You can read more on this at www.brianpeskin.com or order “The Hidden Story of Cancer” today.

Newsflash 2008: Case Closed, Closed, Closed…IT is NOT Genetic

February 8, 2011 2 comments

The Special Edition of Scientific American (Vol. 18, No. 3, August/September 2008) devoted the entire issue to cancer. Many of the articles repeated the previous nonsense we hear time and time again that leads nowhere. However, the article “Untangling the Roots of Cancer,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, was excellent in presenting the truth, starting with the failure of the “oncogene theory.”

• “But the oncogene/tumor suppressor gene hypothesis has also failed, despite three decades of effort, to identify a particular set of gene mutations that occurs in every instance of any of the most common and deadly kinds of human cancer.”

The article then details how geneticist Lawrence A. Loeb led cancer researchers astray with the silly notion that your cells are capable of having 10,000-100,000 mutations each.

• “For many years, he suggested that ‘early during the genesis of cancer there are enormous numbers of random mutations—10,000-100,000 per cell,’ but he had little evidence to support the idea.“ (Emphasis added.)

In 2006, researchers actually measured the number of mutations and it was a mere “65-475 mutations per 100 million nucleotides.” [Note: This is .000475% – .000065%—next to nothing.]

◗ Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary

The number of misleading researchers in the medical sciences never ceases to amaze me, nor how they completely throw all the researchers off track. This type of behavior simply doesn’t occur in sciences like physics or engineering, where scientific standards are much higher. Witness the contrast in results — amazing advances in technology every few years. Contrast this with thirty (30) wasted years of cancer researchers looking in completely the wrong “genetic-based” direction for cancer’s source and cure. Are we doomed to another 30 wasted years before researchers get it right and discover Dr. Warburg?

Read more in “Good News: It’s NOT Genetic” on http://www.brianpeskin.com

The Magic of Pharmaceutical Statistical Butchering

February 6, 2011 1 comment

Many physicians are misled because they have no idea the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to manipulate statistics. Pharmaceutical companies shockingly, yet legally, get to remove the sample size. Again, when is one patient event in a million (drug) compared to two patient events in a million (placebo) equal to 50% improvement instead of the statistically correct 1 in 1,000,000 or 0.0001%? Answer: with the fanciful “pharmaceutical endpoint method,”also termed “relative risk,” as Professor of Medicine Stanton Glantz so aptly put in his book. (Glantz SA. Primer of Biostatistics. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002, 149-156.)

Learn more by downloading “Relative Risk – Absolue Deception, Why Studies are Misleading” from www.brianpeskin.com, today.

Categories: Uncategorized

Passing of Genes During Cell Division

When scientists speak of “cancer genes” and diseases being passed along via genetics, they also commonly refer to another means of passing genetic traits: the process within one single organism or human body in which genes are duplicated and passed to a new cell during cell division. Scientists speak of the possibility that a gene mutation in one cell may then be passed along when the cell divides, and spread a disease throughout the body.

But many scientists and researchers believe that, despite the massive hype that has been put forth to persuade the public that genetic answers to disease are just around the corner, trying to cure cancer or other serious diseases via genetics is still so far off in terms of what we understand about how genes “work,” that it is wasted effort.

See more at www.brianpeskin.com “Good News: It’s Not Genetic”.