This paper was originally written on January 18th, 2017 for my 9th Grade literature class. The topic was conspiracy theories. There were some many restrictions on the assignment such as length, style, the use of personal pronouns, and citations (you know how it is) to get a good grade. I wanted to post this article with a few modifications because I know this is such an important and interesting topic.
We did an oral presentation of our essays where we had to sum up all of our information in three minutes, and believe me, I went way overtime, but I was glad to see my classmates as they realized how likely this conspiracy is to being true.
Modified parts to the original paper are underlined.
Suppose that on any given day, past, present, or future, a doctor miraculously finds a cure for cancer. Excited, he goes to his colleagues to share his revelation. Surprisingly they don’t congratulate him, instead, their faces turn pale. The oldest doctor steps forward and says, “No, you haven’t. If you want to keep your job treating cancer patients, that is.” Some people are convinced that this type of exchange has happened numerous times throughout history. With today’s medically advanced technology, it doesn't make sense that doctors are still looking for the cure for cancer. The reason for a cancer cure cover up is grounded by this philosophy, “Cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar industry. Treatment X cures cancer so well it would destroy that industry” (Higgins, para. 6). Why would cancer treatment hospitals want to go out of business after finding a cure when they can just pretend to keep looking? There’s a difference between a cancer treatment and a cancer cure. A doctor can make a larger profit from treating a patient with expensive chemotherapy or radiation over a long period of time than curing a patient of his or her cancer in one single payment hospital visit. Conspiracists believe that there are groups of people from pharmaceutical companies and members in distinguished positions of the medical field working to suppress the development of a cure for cancer in the interest of protecting the highly profitable cancer treatment industry (Lynes, para. 1).
Even the idea of a cure for cancer may seem absurd, and the notion that a cure has potentially been around for over 85 years is even more preposterous. In fact, there have been multiple reports of possible cures over the years.
In the 1920s, a man named Royal Rife invented a new microscope for his scientific experiments. Contrary to an electron microscope, which kills its specimens, this microscope allowed for the study of living bacteria. Through his experiments, he was able to devise a method that when operated on 16 patients, 14 were considered clinically cured of his or her cancer. His methods were later prohibited by the FDA and influential doctors with their own highly profitable practices refused to acknowledge his work (Lynes, para. 1). His cure was never further developed or researched.
Here is the introduction to Rife's Story as found on the website I read from that proves that the government is involved, as it will be discussed later in this paper:
"The Planet and published February 1986 in the Washington, D.C.. It was delivered to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and every member of the United States Senate. Not one representative, senator or staff assistant was motiviated sufficiently to investigate further. The newspaper was also provided free to the George Washington University Medical School students and professors. Again, not one was motivated to investigate further. All while 7,000 to 10,000 Americans died weekly from cancer! Good examples of public irresponsibility from people in positions of public trust or professions with public trust implied! Shame! Barry Lynes September 25, 1999 The Cancer Cure That Worked: The Rife Report was published in April 1987, 14 months after the U.S. Congress turned its back on Rife and ignored an incredible opportunity to "jump start" the Rife revival. The Planet The cure for cancer was covered up."
http://frequencyrising.com/royal-rife-machine.htm
In G. Edward Griffin’s testimony in the article, "Promising Cancer Cure Cover-Up by Big Pharma”, he speaks about Drs. McDonald and Garland, who were heavily invested in the remedy of cancer patients and published the California Report of 1953, which was not completed with a thorough analysis. Their job was to test laetrile, as it was being associated with the miraculous recoveries of some patients. Griffin accuses them of only analyzing the lab results and putting their opinion on the summary that everyone read on the cover. The summary stated that laetrile had no connection with the treatment of cancer. After reading that, no one bothered to read the whole report and were in affect lied to. However, if one had read over the results of the paper, Griffin claims “there was plenty of evidence in the laboratory work that it did retard the growth of cancer” (Bollinger, para. 23). This is the beginning of another camouflage for another cure.
Also in the interview, the speaker said that both doctors prescribed cigarettes as treatments for lung cancer.
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/cureforcancer.php
In an article published in 2007, a drug used to treat rare metabolic disorders called dichloroacetate (DCA) was found to treat some brain, breast and lung cancers (Coghlan “Cheap”, para. 7). The cause of cancer is simple; cells deprived of oxygen in a tumor switch off their mitochondria, the power source, and survive by a different energy making process called glycolysis. The tumor grows, and eventually, the lactic acid produced by glycolysis allows the cancerous cells to escape the tumor and spread throughout the body (Coghlan “Cheap”, para. 1). This new drug “switches the mitochondria in the cancer cells back on … and starts making energy in the mitochondria again. The self-destruct mechanism is then activated, and the cells wither and die” (Coghlan “Cheap”, para. 3). The drug is cheap and safe, meaning there are no side effects to a dosage, yet it has no patent. In 2011, a follow-up article was published to the same source entitled ‘Cancer drug resurfaces and threatens false optimism’. The author acknowledged that the DCA drug began to gain interest, “Within weeks, patients were trying to get their own supplies of DCA, and some entrepreneurs set up websites to sell it, that were subsequently declared illegal and closed down by the US Food and Drug Administration” (Coghlan “Cancer”, para. 5). The drug was further tested, and ‘probably extended the lives of four [out of the five] patients’ but since the drug lacks sufficient funding for more tests, the major pharmaceutical companies refuse to distribute it because there was not enough evidence to prove the drug’s validity (Coghlan “Cancer”, para. 9).
Interestingly, both articles "Cheap, 'safe' drug kills most cancers" written in 2007, and "Cancer drug resurfaces and threatens false optimism" published in 2011 are both written by Andy Coghlan on Newscientist.com. The first article logically explains how the drug works and how multiple tests have proven it's legitimacy. However the second article talks about how surprised he was that his first article gained so much attention and all of the ways people were trying to spread news about the DCA drug. Yet, the article is opened with, "So, we hear news of a miraculous treatment for cancer. Disappointingly, the story is an old one which has somehow resurfaced on the blogosphere" (Coghlan “Cancer”, para. 1). And throughout, it seems that he tries to deny the potential of the cure despite no new evidence was found to disprove it. It is possible that before the article was able to go viral, Coghlan was consulted about denying the cure, and forced to post a follow-up story. That is a person theory of mine, do not take it seriously in any way, shape, or form as it is soley an opinion of mine with no factual evidence at all.
http://jes2s.com/may2014/Dichloroacetate.html
From the perspective of the public, scientists have been using funding from private charities at cancer research centers in search for a grand cure for almost a century, and independent researchers have been looking for a cure ever since the disease was first recorded by Hippocrates 2,400 years ago (Higgins, para. 20). This may be true, but there is concern that all of this searching has been a scam to fool the public. However, there are two main counterpoints to the cancer cover-up. “Cancer is not a single disease. It’s hundreds of diseases … Not only is cancer not a single disease, but individual cancers are made up of multiple different clones of cancer cells under selective pressure to become ever more invasive and deadly” (Gorski, para. 4-7). Hundreds of different versions of a cancer are impossible to treat with one umbrella cure. This is a big contradiction to the legitimacy of the DCA drug, which can only treat lung, breast, and brain cancer cells (Coghlan, para. 3). In spite of this, brain, breast, and lung cancers are certainly a large percentage of the cancers people most often develop, and DCA was not gotten much research and has mysteriously gone unnoticed by the mainstream media. However, if you do a simple google search with the words 'cancer' and 'profit', tons of entries from small news organizations and blogs are found. I looked at a few websites including cancer treatment centers and the CDC, and calculated that if the DCA drug had been distributed to patients who had brain, lung, or breast cancer from 2007-2017, about 2.3 million lives (Which is about the population of Houston, Texas) could have been saved.
Another opposition to the existence of the cancer cure is rooted in the business of the government. “The cost of treating cancer patients takes up a large, and increasing proportion of the government health budget. The cancer conspiracy would suggest that the government is so concerned about keeping the business running … that they would hide any discovery that would free up hospital resources” (Higgins, para. 13). This claim is further backed up with the fact that governments are made up of politicians that would like to be favored by voters, and if it was leaked by one of the government’s many members that the government hiding a cure for cancer, approval ratings would deteriorate. And while it seems like the activities of the state are transparent, members of the bureaucracy and congress are heavily lobbied by advocacy groups including those in the medical field to get certain regulations passed. These regulations could be motivated by anti-cure efforts which could explain why the FDA took down websites that distributed the DCA drug online and also heavily regulated Royal Rife’s methods for curing cancer.
Ultimately, a commanding amount of evidence suggests that there are many alleged elixirs for cancer, but they lack proper funding, endorsement, or publicity to truly make a difference. It’s hard to believe that thousands of years worth of research have only provided doctors with treatments that are long and expensive, such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, while other independent scientists have shown real results in the development of a cheap drug that could save many lives in a short period of time. It would take a tremendously large movement to produce a cure for cancer that could be developed and distributed without the monetary investment of authoritative members of the medical field to sponsor it. If you are convinced that this conspiracy simply cannot be true because you trust that it is impossible for the majority of the world’s doctors, politicians, and scientists to in on hiding the cure to cancer for the profit; the big pockets are doing a good job, because they have the majority of the public fooled too.
Nathaniel Greve
Cite this article:
Greve, Nathaniel. "The Great Cancer Cure Cover-Up." Natecentral. Nathaniel Greve Productions, 2 Feb. 2017. Web. DD MMM. YYYY.
Works Cited:
Bollinger, Ty, and Griffin, G. Edward. "Promising Cancer Cure Cover-Up by
Big Pharma." The Truth About Cancer. TTAC Publishing, LLC, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
Coghlan, Andy. "Cancer Drug Resurfaces and Threatens False Optimism." New Scientist. Reed Business Information Ltd., 16 May 2011. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.
Coghlan, Andy. "Cheap, ‘safe’ Drug Kills Most Cancers." New Scientist. Reed Business Information Ltd., 17 Jan. 2007. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
Gorski, David. "Why Haven’t We Cured Cancer Yet?" Science-Based Medicine. NESS, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
Higgins, Michael. "Is There Really a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?" Cancer Treatment Watch Quackwatch, 24 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
Lynes, Barry “The Cancer Cure That Worked: The Rife Report.” www.rife.org. The Planet Newspaper, 25 Sept. 1999. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.