The Fraud of Cancer Research

Researchers are fabricating their findings to create the illusion of positive findings, instead of publishing their actual results, for the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants.


“That the cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system in which scientific truth is often sacrificed to vested interests.”— Edward Griffin

There was a bombshell in science journal Nature recently (Nature 483, 531–533-29 March 2012) about cancer research published in the leading peer-reviewed journals of the world. Authors of the paper, C Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis, were unable to replicate the results of 47 of the 53 (89%), studies examined. Begley stated in the paper: “These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development, but if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”

Simply put, researchers are fabricating their findings to create the illusion of positive findings, instead of publishing their actual results, for the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants. Based on such research papers, millions of hapless patients are led up the garden path to hell after spending all their life’s savings!

The Mayo Clinic, in 2009, concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals. Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinised. It is mainly money-driven and based on developing new drugs. Begley writes: “Fifty-three papers were deemed ‘landmark’ studies. It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result.”

The final recommendation of the authors, at the end of the paper, is worth repeating verbatim here: “However, it is important to remember that patients are at the centre of all these efforts. If we in the field forget this, it is easy to lose our sense of focus, transparency and urgency. Cancer researchers are funded by community taxes and by the hard work and philanthropic donations of advocates. More importantly, patients rely on us to embrace innovation, make advances and deliver new therapies that will improve their lives. Although hundreds of thousands of research papers are published annually, too few clinical successes have been produced given the public investment of significant financial resources. We need a system that will facilitate a transparent discovery process that frequently and consistently leads to significant patient benefit.”

I must have written more than a dozen papers in the past about this ground reality. All that I earned was the wrath of the cancer lobby. We have a moral responsibility here. We are dealing with human life and cancer is probably the cruellest disease. What surprised me all these years is how we have been accepting chemicals and radiation in cancer treatment knowing well that such treatments also destroy healthy cells.

What would happen to the patient at the end of the day whose immune system cells are as damaged as the cancer cells? Have we ever given a thought to this human aspect of cancer treatment? One of the greatest brains in biology, a Nobel Laureate, Albert Szent-Györgyi, wondered how cancer treatment could be developed as the cancer cell works exactly like a normal cell. His concern was to develop a drug that kills the cancer cells and not the healthy immune body cells. In fact, cancer treatment does destroy all fast-dividing cells; the bone marrow and the immune cells do just that. How can anyone expect to heal a patient by destroying his immune system? Would any of you like to get on to a plane which is sure to crash 89% of the time? That is cancer treatment today!

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”— Dr Linus Pauling (Twice Nobel Prize winner)

Professor Dr BM Hegde, a Padma Bhushan awardee in 2010, is an MD, PhD, FRCP (London, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Dublin), FACC and FAMS.

Comments
dinesh doshi
8 years ago
Iam self styled Doctor of URINE THERAPY, because there is no college or course for urine therapy course.I am practicing for 25 years.Recently a 60 years old patient of NONHODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA was indiecrtly advise to go home and wait for death. I was contacted to try as there was nothing to lose.Those who do not belive in urine therapy will say that diagnosis was wrong. i accompanied the patient to a very very big hospital and had discussion with the doctor. he asked what the scientific proof? I told him I am an ordinary man. I do not charge consultaton fee. But if you can refer me a patient who will not live 30 days under any circumstances and if he shows SUBSTANTIAL improvement in 10 days, will you consider this scientific? He was mum
Dinesh Doshi, Mumbai +919619439665
Dekho ji.com
8 years ago
This is nothing new. Max corruption occurs in this medical field because people's lives are most precious and all companies want to make huge profits at the cost of people's lives. So, fudge the data, publish some fake research articles in newspapers / journals and get the medicine onto the markets quickly before the fake lies are exposed. By the time, the fakes are detected, they would have made crores of Rs. Human beings have now become guinea pigs for these medical MNC companies.
suresh pathak
9 years ago
Dr Hegde,
The article does point out certain relevant issues .But this should not be forgotten that all research in the field of finding out therapeutically effective new chemical entities is a tortuous journey through a blind alley. Having spent several millions and a time spanning years ,one might land up at an NCE which is most effective but full of deterrent adverse effects which throws all investment go down the drain . And hence no research will ever be undertaken without a steady stream of funds being guaranteed.
Compromise on moral ground with reporting and other procedures is akin to corruption and compromises in any other walk of life and may not be generalized.
Rather a stiffer control system needs to be worked out with overseeing agencies .
Further ,I beleive all research in the Cancer field has'nt gone waste . The median survival of patients ,and quality of life has tremendously improved which can be confirmed from any medical / surgical /radiation Oncologist with long years of experience .

Suresh Pathak
[email protected]
Suiketu Shah
9 years ago
Great article.Thanks a lot Dr Hegde.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback