Why Cancer Conspiracy Theories Really Piss People Off

Cancer bellianus Johnston 1861 stuffed museum La Rochelle Cath Ennis, an expat Brit working as a cancer genomics project manager in Vancouver, Canada, explains why she’s feeling so crabby about cancer conspiracy theories in the Guardian:

I remember exactly where I was the very first time I learned that I was part of a global conspiracy, raking in millions of dollars and laughing sadistically as people died all around me: I was at my friends’ 2004 Christmas party, and had just told a fellow guest that I was a research scientist and worked at the BC Cancer Agency.

The millions of dollars were news to me, given that as a freshly minted PhD I was making C$35,000 (£22,000) a year at the time. However, what really took me aback was the sheer vehemence of the anger being directed at me by my friends’ new neighbour. He jabbed his finger at me as he raised his voice and ranted about how “all you scientists are sitting on a 100% effective cure for cancer” (“a bunch of vitamins smushed together with proteins” were his exact words), watching millions of people die as we counted the royalty money from the “useless poisons” we were forcing people to take.

The neighbour was ejected from the party, never to be invited back, after poking my husband in the chest when he came to see if I was OK – but I’ve heard that same conspiracy theory many times since. It crops up most commonly online, to the extent that I read even those news articles about my own institute’s latest research findings with a sense of impending doom that worsens as I near the bottom of the page.

Now, I’m not an idiot – I know progress is frustratingly slow (but steady), and I know that some big pharma business practices are rather less than optimally ethical. However, having spent 12 of the last 14 years in academic cancer research (first in the lab and then as a research project manager/grant application wrangler), I also understand why the problem is so hard. (Briefly, killing cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed is like trying to win an old fashioned infantry battle in which both sides are wearing the same uniform, except some of the enemy have slightly different shaped buttons, others have slightly longer bootlaces, others have slightly lacier underwear, and all have the ability to suddenly change clothes halfway through the fight)…

[continues in the Guardian]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

87 Comments on "Why Cancer Conspiracy Theories Really Piss People Off"

  1. charlieprimero | Dec 7, 2012 at 11:24 am |

    “…less than optimally ethical ” hahahaha! That was good.

  2. FTA “Oh, and by the way – big pharma are shutting down that other cure … because there’s no way their huge teams of experienced intellectual property lawyers could possibly find a way to patent a new and unique way to formulate and use an existing product.”

    And yet here’s a article in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-coldc.html which says almost exactly that.

    “Magnus and his co-workers on this virus have already published the details of their experiments in leading journals around the world, which means that the modified virus as it stands can no longer be patented. And without a patent to make the virus commercial, no one will invest.”

    “How much investment is needed?”, you ask.

    Why a whopping 2 million dollars. 4 Million for an even better version.

    It won’t treat all cancers, of course. Just a certain subset.

    But it’s sitting in a refrigerator gathering hoarfrost because there’s not enough money in it.

    Stupid fucking bitch.

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Dec 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

      I agree with much of what you suggest. However, sexism doesn’t support your argument. Don’t try to say it’s a rhetorical flourish. She’s probably got 30 IQ points on any of us that post here and her gender is irrelevant. Her integrity/intellectual honesty is open to debate though.

      • Hmm…

        You’re right that a ladle of sexism isn’t going to support my argument, but “bitch” was used as an expression of emotional invective towards her. Were she a male instead, I would have used some handy invective specific to a male.

        As far as her IQ, I seriously doubt she’s got 30 points on “any” of the posters here. There’s some smart motherfuckers who post on here.

        • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Dec 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

          There it is. Patriarchy is SO predictable.

          And aren’t we all so fucking smart on this blog. You can tell cause we make snarky comments with GRE words. Lets get some votes for conformation bias posts that make us feel smart!

          My point stands, buttressed by your reply.

          • Sandbox Hero | Dec 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

            You sound more dumb after each comment.

            Zenc kicks ass, DEAL WITH IT.

          • Yeah, but hey at least all of us get harems, in this ultra patriarchal society we have here.

          • kowalityjesus | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm |

            I support an assault on the jaded-know-it-all nature of the comments section.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 9, 2012 at 12:34 am |

            The comments section is yours o’brother of enlightenment. Thou hath won the fair bequeathment of this internets. Fare thee well, other glories await.

        • Calypso_1 | Dec 8, 2012 at 1:29 am |

          All true, but there has been a noticeable exodus of the 3σ population.

        • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:17 am |

          They must be well hidden . Cannabis use reduces it by an average of ten

      • Havin' a laugh | Dec 7, 2012 at 10:15 pm |

        Way to get hung up on the completely irrelevant.

    • Bang on Zenc! Great information!

      I honestly don’t have the energy to argue with closed minded, hardened denier, defenders of the status quo, paid pharma shills or whatever scum they are. Crawl back in your holes or do your own research.

  3. hash oil has cured cancer before for many people. look up the rick simpson story…and no i don’t smoke weed so put your hateful pothead rants to rest.

    • Damian Renolds | Dec 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

      Two of my family members cured their cancer this way. They didn’t really enjoy being stoned out of their fucking minds for 3 months straight, but it destroyed the cancer. You need really really really good cannabis to start with though, and you need a lot of it. Both of them consumed around 2 1/2 lbs of cannabis bud in the time frame I mentioned. After you turn the cannabis into oil its obviously less than 2 1/2 lbs worth, but you need that much to start with. It also really sucks if you need to buy it.

      • Geoff Henry | Dec 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

        Hell of a lot cheaper than chemo and radiation. and it works. I’ve met the survivors and list others to chemo etc. let alone the quality of life. not a fan of not being present, but its better than the pain, diarrhea, nausea etc from conventional therapy.

      • David Howe | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

        So your family members received no other therapy besides the hash oil?

        • fuck off you whore tommy chong cured his cancer with nothing but hemp oil and healthy foods

          this is a study proving it shrinks tumor sizes so go fuck yourself you doubting government sheepel (sheep people).

          • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm |

            or you could just answer a direct question. Did your family member receive any other form of therapy?

          • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:10 am |

            He has stage I disease. He didn’t say if he had other treatment . most people live more than five years with it anyway at that stage. He is just using it as a platform to legalise cannabis . Strange he gt it in the first place if it’s so helpful. So it’s not clear if he is using anything else and he sent cured. Gosh that’s impressive

        • Damian Renolds | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:54 am |

          My Father received absolutely no treatment besides the hash oil. However, he radically changed his diet after he was diagnosed. My Aunt had chemo therapy 4 times throughout the years, each time the cancer came back. Then finally she was ready to try something different. They both hated the “getting high” part and almost stopped the treatment because it was just so intense. My father battled with paranoia and kept thinking he was going to die every time he would take a high dosage. Good thing the opposite actually happened. Every time they took the oil you could see it was helping, despite the side affects. If you have cancer and strong mental fortitude, this type of treatment will definitely work.

          • David Howe | Dec 22, 2012 at 12:01 pm |

            That’s just completely crazy

          • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:12 am |

            There is no point arguing with these people . All made up stories that are completely unverifiable . Now just need stiff upper lip and a spoonful of medicine”…for anything. I’m surprised anyone dies anymore

    • David Howe | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm |


      There is no evidence that hash oil cures anything except discomfort and lack of appetite.

      • Kevin Leonard | Dec 8, 2012 at 2:21 pm |


        Interesting, in your link: “The Kogan study elucidates cellular anti-cancer mechanisms of THC but warns “sometimes they can act also as pro-cancer agents, especially in low concentrations…”

        I wonder why the same criteria for dismissing medical cannabis isn’t used for chemo/ radiation?

        The summary of the Kogan study – “In summary, cannabinoids possess some anticancer activity. Possibly they may represent a new class of anticancer drugs that retard cancer growth, inhibit angiogenesis and the metastatic spreading of cancer cells.” – something of a different conclusion than Ms. Hall’s.

        • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

          “I wonder why the same criteria for dismissing medical cannabis isn’t used for chemo/ radiation?”

          why don’t you go do the research and find out?

          • Kevin Leonard | Dec 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

            If you are sold on the idea that chemo and radiation is the best way to address cancer, I’m not going to try and enlighten you any more. But I will leave you with one parting link that has quotes from MDs concerning their opinions on conventional cancer treatments.


          • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm |

            I never said any such thing. I only said that efficacious treatments should be used. Hash oil is not one of those treatments.

          • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:13 am |

            why do none of these people pop into a hospice and cure everyone? Let the excuses begin…. It doesn’t work that’s why. YouTube is not a recognised medical journal . Sorry to break it to you

          • Kevin Leonard | May 7, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

            I see you have a job at a hospital. It must be disheartening to read that contemporaries and, perhaps, superiors, state that the system you have invested so much in is bullshit.

      • http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-study-confirms-hemp-oil-cures-cancer-without-side-effects/ just fucking kill yourself david howe because its people like you who are going to slow the progress of geting this cure legalized and available for everyone.

        • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

          or you could converse like an adult

        • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:15 am |

          What – one minute it’s a harmless intoxicant and the next it’s inhaled chemotherapy …. Make up your mind

      • RandomResearcher | Dec 10, 2012 at 11:27 am |

        In my lab, If I introduce delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol into a petri dish the contains cancer cultures, the cultures DIE. Hows that for evidence, douchbag. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it or studied it for yourself.

        • David Howe | Dec 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

          Please publish the results for us. Then begin human trials. All I need is evidence.

        • Michael Murray | May 6, 2013 at 7:16 am |

          Introduce cyanide into a culture it will die …. The key for us grown ups is tha we aren’t petri dishes.

  4. Beer Snob | Dec 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

    Idiotic article, this author is a quack!!

  5. Kevin Leonard | Dec 7, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

    I can sympathize with her, as I know that individuals in the medical system have the best intentions. But their actions and research foci are molded and directed by TPTB. There is no getting around that.

    I notice that she didn’t mention Anti-neoplastic activity of Cannabinoids http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1159836

    or how early detection results in over 70,000 unnecessary breast cancer treatment regimens per year.

    Her last paragraph is particularly troubling, though, as it thoroughly illustrates that she is, indeed, part of the culture implemented from TPTB because there is ample evidence that the AMA shuts down people who don’t play on their team and who hurt their pocketbooks.
    That is, after all, how the AMA got their start.

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Dec 7, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

      How else will they reap the rewards of those vaccines they force on everyone?

      • Kevin Leonard | Dec 7, 2012 at 1:44 pm |

        Oh shit! You’ve figured out that I’m an advocate for Health Freedom!!

        The irony behind your comment, however, is that vaccines are homeopathic medicine. I’m not against homeopathic medicine. I’m just against the adjuvants in vaccines and, yes, the forced mandate that comes with them.

        Oh, and there is the profit.
        “Meanwhile, pharmaceutical profits from swine-flu-related drugs have soared – with earnings between $10 billion and $15 billion in 2009, investment bank JPMorgan estimate.”
        Altruism at its finest.

        • David Howe | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

          Did you just link the World Net Daily? Oh come on. Incidentally, you are patently, fundamentally incorrect in stating that vaccines are homeopathic. They are not. Homepathic medicines contain no active ingredients (only the “memory” of that ingredient) while vaccines contain inactive forms of germs. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. Homeopathic remedies have not. Look it up.

          • Kevin Leonard | Dec 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm |

            “Homeopathy is based on the idea that “like cures like.” That is, if a substance causes a symptom in a healthy person, giving the person a very small amount of the same substance may cure the illness. In theory, a homeopathic dose enhances the body’s normal healing and self-regulatory processes.”

            Vaccines are homeopathic medicine. What you are describing is simply a different type of preparation. You really shouldn’t pretend to be so smart.

            “Vaccines have been shown to be safe…”
            If this were the case, why does this exist?

            Enjoy your soma.

          • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

            Again. Wrong. There is no evidence that homeopathic medicines improve the body’s immune response. Vaccinations, however, do just that. Millions have been kept well by vaccines. No one was been cured by homeopathic remedies. Please consult a medical dictionary and educate yourself as to the definitions of the words that you use.

            And I’m not pretending to be smart.

          • Kevin Leonard | Dec 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm |

            Do you really have such comprehension troubles? I am not defending homeopathy as a diluted substance. I am inferring that homeo- means “same” while -“pathy” means “related to disease” and that homeopathy is addressing the disease with the same substance.

            And you didn’t address the FACT that vaccines cause injury, ergo, they are NOT SAFE.

          • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

            That makes no sense, but whatever.

          • Kevin Leonard | Dec 9, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

            You do know that your first comment is the one I get in my email, right? The one where you called me an idiot.

            I don’t really know why I’m bothering to do this. If you cannot see any sense in this, you are beyond ignorant.

            Like; similar: homeostasis.

            1. Feeling; suffering; perception: telepathy.
            2.a. Disease: neuropathy.
            b. A system of treating disease: homeopathy.


          • not the same as a vaccine. not even close.

          • Oh Smart One | Dec 10, 2012 at 11:17 am |

            Because your a pretentiousness idiot who can see past his own narrow views.

  6. Spoken like a religious person who hasn’t figured out it’s all a scam yet. I wonder if this article was her own idea, or if the pharmaceutical companies are trying to run a PR stunt for a better image. I HOPE she is just naive, as sad as that is, but when it comes to big pharma nothing is too sinister. I notice the article right above this one is about pharma’s paying Eastern Germany to experiment on its citizens. A person could write an encyclopedia on all of the documented examples of the AMA being ‘slightly less than optimally ethical’. Capitalism and medicine just don’t mix very well.

  7. chris gomez | Dec 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

    what about broccoli?

  8. any time that science doesn’t yield results that people like, or that are inconvenient, it has to be a conspiracy, or scientists with an agenda…man-made global warming, evolution, motion of the planets around the sun. I don’t hear a lot of determinists arguing about the Heizenberg uncertainty principle or other principles of quantum mechanics. The fundamentals of which are necessary for the semiconductor industry.

    • I’ve been known to question the Copenhagen Interpretation (perhaps not on this site and I’m too lazy to search), as have others.

      Sometimes, but not always, there really is a conspiracy.

      Nearly every day, including today, we see stories roll past here which easily establish that people engage in conspiracies for their own perceived benefit.

      As much as “skeptics” rant about “conspiracy theorists” attributing to “conspirators” a magical level of power and control, it is ironic that “skeptics” seem to overlook the fundamental selfishness of human nature.

  9. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. I think another lense to look at by, might be as an emergent phenomena of these various cartels showing a type of collective intelligence in not acting against their best interests, which would be, of course profiting off treating cancer.

    I mean evolutionarily speaking organisms that act against their own survival don’t survive. Its the same with the Oil cartel, big Ag etc. I mean sure Big Ag could support small scale sustainable permaculture, oil companies could release all these patents they own for super carburators, and big Pharma could sink everything into natural remedies that they can’t profit from. But for some reason they don’t. Must be the illuminati

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Dec 8, 2012 at 2:38 am |

      I think that is the best model for any large scale “conspiracy”. A bunch of people, all acting in their own best interests, reap benefit for themselves. Through this benefit, and in seeking more, they institutionalize the process banding themselves and their associates together and ritualizing the whole thing, with corporations, religions, lobbying groups, even cultural paradigms. Conspiracy implies a hidden component. I think that over time, the opposition is silenced in many forms.

      For one thing, it becomes taboo to talk about screwing people over to the folks who are on the take. That’s why this lady is really upset. We aren’t supposed to talk about the corruption. Not about things that project authority. That’s simply not allowed in this culture.

      • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm |

        I agree with your analysis of apparent conspiracies. However, Ted’s incompetence and paranoia raises concerns.

  10. David Howe | Dec 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

    Those of you who support the Big Pharma Conspiracy theory and the Pot-Cures-Everything brigade are in way over your heads. My God, do you even know what cancer is?

    • Kevin Leonard | Dec 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

      Hasty generalization, composition, ad hominem and non-sequitur. Four fallacies in two sentences. Outstanding. Well done.

    • David Howe, if you are so much of a moron, you can’t discover the information yourself, what’s the point in even responding to you? Numerous cases have been documented of people that have cured their own cancers. Look it up! Big Pharma = conflict of interest. Look it up!

  11. DeepCough | Dec 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm |

    In all fairness to the author, no, there is no conspiracy; it’s a superficial term in this argument; but that doesn’t means there aren’t any forces opposed to the synthesis, discovery, or production of a cure.

    Watch the documentary “Pink Ribbons, Inc,” and you’ll see how breast cancer has been turned into a huge marketing tool to sell all sorts of products–even those which can cause cancer like petroleum-based cosmetics and Kentucky Fried Chicken!–and encourage a sort of “cult of consumerism,” which does more to raise money than it does to progress the discovery or implementation
    of any cure for breast cancer whatsoever, especially in the era of the human genome.

    • BuzzCoastin | Dec 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm |

      In China I have noticed that cancer screening is producing a high number of women with breast cancer, but they have no symptoms. The process requires the women place blind trust in the doctor & the test. And without so much as a second opinion, they lop off a breast or two. The doctor makes some extra cash for the procedure and the hospital makes some on the services & the drugs. And the woman is grateful her life has been spared by modern western medicine.

      The same thing goes on in the west, but Western women are starting to be less sheep-like and the studies are confirming that their lack of trust in the diagnosis is right on.

      • DeepCough | Dec 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm |

        Here’s a truly sick irony for you: breast cancer screenings, or mammograms, which involve the use of radiation, increase the risk of getting breast cancer! Don’t you just love industrialized medicine? http://jezebel.com/5941445/great-breast-cancer-prevention-may-lead-to-breast-cancer

        • BuzzCoastin | Dec 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm |

          Ironic but
          I learned my marketing chops from the guy who started mamo screening
          till about the mid-80’s everyone thought the use of radiation in screening was nuts
          enter Phillipe the marketing genius
          all the sudden mamo is the rage and we can’t make the machines fast enough
          GE buys the company, Phillipe makes a mint and gets serious marketing cred

          now I doubt Phillipe stops by here
          but if you’re reading this Phillipe
          though Harland was very good, I still think you’re the greatest marketing guy I ever met,

          even if I don’t agree with what was created

      • David Howe | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

        Yes, I’m sure their goal is to lop off breasts rather than cure cancer. Since all doctors are in on the conspiracy, of course what you say is true.

        • BuzzCoastin | Dec 8, 2012 at 8:30 pm |

          This is my personal observation, so it’s far from proven, but I’ve met at least 5 women who had “preventative” mastectomies based on one test and no symptoms.

          In China, if they do a biopsy (they don’t usually) they will keep you till the results come back & then do the surgery. Both the doc & the hospital benefit from this financially.

          Once I reviewed every abstract on PubMed on prostate cancer treatments. (I was developing a marketing plan for a treatment.) I discovered there were 4 equally efficacious treatments for prostate cancer:
          * surgery (very debilitating & expensive)
          * Chemo (also very debilitating & expensive)
          * several types of radiation treatments, seeds, implants, X-beam (less debilitating)
          * doing nothing (prostate cancer is usually slow growing & most die of something else first)

          The efficacious treatment least used? Doing nothing.

          • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:13 pm |

            you’re aware of several things, right?

            Firstly, the decision to have breast surgery belongs to the patient, not the doctor. The women to whom you refer were not victims of mutilation. Please don’t make it sound that way.

            Secondly, what “symptoms” of breast cancer are you looking for? Breast cancer diagnosis is achieved by following a deductive medical protocol, not by evaluating symptoms. Breast cancer is not MS or diabetes; there are frequently no symptoms at all until the cancer is in an advanced state, thus the advantage of mammograms and other diagnostic tools.

            Your analysis of prostate treatment options is also faulty. Again, the decision on treatment is not the doctor’s. It is the patient’s. It is the patient’s decision to go forth with surgery or radiation. I also think it’s clear that everyone in this society is aware of the risks and discomforts of chemo, surgery, and radiation. We are not idiots.

          • BuzzCoastin | Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 pm |

            Google this:
            More than 1 million women given unnecessary and invasive treatment for breast cancer, study finds

            > We are not idiots.
            When it comes to following the suggestions of authority figures, like doctors, most people are idiots.

            You are either just argumentative or have some vested interest in conventional medicine.

          • David Howe | Dec 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

            so….arguing is bad (especially when someone disagrees with you, right??) or I’m in on the conspiracy? really? Those are the only two possibilities?

          • BuzzCoastin | Dec 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm |

            your arguments in this case are not arguments
            they’re usually demands & challenges
            with nothing to back them up

            so you think modern cancer care is great
            good for you
            but medicine is a business not philanthropy
            and more people earn a living from cancer than die from it
            and most of what passes for modern medicine
            is in fact the preying on the sick by the wealthy

  12. BuzzCoastin | Dec 7, 2012 at 8:11 pm |

    I worked in the treatment equipment side of the Cancer Biz for about 20 years and most of the people I met were sincere in their desire to help. But it’s a business first.

    There is a pile of money to made from cancer patients and that’s the primary motivation for most people involved. I sold hundreds of multimillion dollar cancer treatment devices and during the sales process we never talked about the efficacy of the treatment, only about the price, the ROI, up-time, service support and easy of use.

    Additionally, Big Pharma has rigged the game to exclude potential treatments that don’t go through them. Why?
    MONEY! About $103.8 billion a year in the US.

    • David Howe | Dec 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

      Please present evidence that Big Pharma has rigged the game. Please explain why doctors should NOT consider the business aspects of the expensive equipment that you were selling them. I think it’s safe to say that they didn’t discuss the efficacy with you because it was moot. Please present the statistics from your doctor-customers that show that they were deliberately delivering expensive, ineffective treatments. I think you’ll discover a fairly reasonable remission rate.

      • BuzzCoastin | Dec 8, 2012 at 8:12 pm |

        > Please present evidence that Big Pharma has rigged the game.
        LMAO! Pls pull your head out of your arse.
        see: Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients by Ben Goldacre

        > Please present the statistics from your doctor-customers that show that they were deliberately delivering expensive, ineffective treatments.

        Check: Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD & Carolyn Dean

        > Please explain why doctors should NOT consider the business aspects of the expensive equipment…

        Before the DRG system of Ronny Raygun’s era, no physician or hospital administrator ever talked about ROI & reimbursement, after that, it was all they talked about, but it took decades to become as purely money driven as it is today.

      • Hardened denier, defender of the status quo, pharma/govt troll?

  13. emperorreagan | Dec 7, 2012 at 9:54 pm |

    Calm down. You’re part of the dominant cultural narrative. Don’t take it so personally when you run into people who aren’t following the same script.

  14. denverover | Dec 8, 2012 at 6:36 pm |

    Look up the cancer research on a fruit called Guanabana , the study, as it was pointed out to me, is 10 years old, but the results have never been refuted or disproved, here is one …
    Also look up Chaparral (creosote plant) as it relates to cancer research. here is just one place to look…http://www.cancersalves.com/botanical_approaches/individual_herbs/chaparral.html
    A note, I, myself, have drank 8 ounces of very strong Chaparral tea x3 a day for 6 weeks without missing a dose and my liver and spleen are healthy as a horse, I’m 65 yrs old. The drug companies are trying to copy these cures chemically as it is impossible to patent a fruit or desert bush. But don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself. There are many cures in nature that are being withheld or lied about because there is no profit in eating plants or drinking teas. There was a wonderful cold and flue remedy in Mother Earth News, but they retracted it because they claimed the government said that comfrey was bad for the health(I cannot remember the exact excuse) and should not be taken internally, I say horse hockey, but then I’m not a doctor or drug company looking to get rich, and so I am not giving medical advise I’m telling you research it for yourself, or believe in WMDs in Iraq.

    • David Howe | Dec 9, 2012 at 2:16 pm |

      better be careful. Chaparral has been shown to CAUSE cancer. Did you have cancer to begin with? Why did you take all of these things?

  15. Look up Dr. Stanislaw Bursinski too and the criminal acts the FDA and big pharma has pulled on him… You may be trying to truly cure cancer but the big corporations who do rake in billions on their man made drugs are definitely not. Curing cancer would eliminate tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide and kill a huge source of revenue and a corporations mandate is to profit not cure. I’m not knocking you pure intentions but you only know what you know at the compartmentalized level you are at and nothing about what goes on above good luck in your search. We invented an atomic bomb in a few years and can’t cure cancer in 6 or 7 decades give me a break.

  16. You can call me a conspiracy theorist if I can call you a coincidence theorist.

  17. localhandy | Jan 18, 2013 at 7:53 pm |

    My brother won his battle against bowel cancer by smoking copious amounts of marijuana and mixing Guinness with Vodka and drinking himself to sleep. All this whilst going through chemo therapy and carrying a colostomy bag. He’s an incredible specimen of a fellow and worth writing a book about.

Comments are closed.