(NaturalNews) There is a conspiracy of oppression taking place right now against free speech about GMOs. Just this week, YouTube censored a whistleblower video that exposed Whole Foods employees lying about the fact that Whole Foods sells masses of genetically modified foods and is therefore a significant financial supporter of Monsanto.

It is now perfectly clear that this video was censored because of its truthful message, not because it actually violated any real terms of service with YouTube.

That's the reality in which we now live: Telling the truth about GMOs is practically a crime. The mainstream media, meanwhile, refuses to cover the truth about GMO dangers. And the U.S. government itself is, of course, completely sold out to corporate interests and thus won't warn the American people about GMOs, either.

We quite literally live in an age so bizarre and irrational that the simple act of warning fellow citizens about poison in the food is now systematically suppressed. The status quo wants you to eat your poison, shut up, stop asking questions and check yourself in at the nearest for-profit cancer center once those tumors start to show up.

That's the new system of oppression and slavery in America: It's medical slavery, economic slavery and even thought slavery.

The new video by Gary NullFighting back against that system are the courageous individuals who dare to tell the truth. And one of those individuals is Dr. Gary Null, Ph.D.

Gary Null has just released a stunning new video called "GMO Ticking Time Bomb."

It's a teaser, actually, for a much longer documentary to be released in the near future. Watch "GMO Ticking Time Bomb" at:



Or watch the video embedded, below.

GMO Ticking Time Bomb is a must-see video offering an information-rich overview of the situation with GMOs. It features interviews with people like Jeffrey Smith, Ronnie Cummins, David Murphy and more.

In the film, Rima Laibow also explains how Monsanto and DuPont formed a joint venture to create the "Epicyte gene" that causes permanent, irreversible infertility in both men and women.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037438_GMO_time_bomb_Gary_Null.html#ixzz29eFB0ddc

Watch it here, if you dare:
(NaturalNews) Every year, physicians recommend that people get flu shots to bolster their immune system and prevent getting the flu. The ideology behind flu vaccines is that humans are unable to adapt to their environment and must depend on modern technology to survive the seasons. Flu vaccines have been shown to be highly ineffective and toxic for human and animal use.

Vaccines are one of medicine's prized attempt to improve human performance. They use artificial laboratory derived medical technology to produce an immune response within the body in hopes it will lead to a long-term positive anti-body response. The American Medical Association is especially vigilant about requiring those they deem as immune compromised to get the flu shot. This includes infants and children, pregnant women and seniors.

The vaccine ideology is based on the belief that people are created with inferior immune systems that are unable to keep up with the demands of the environment and need modern technology in the form of man-made vaccine formulations in order to bolster immunity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "The following substances are found in flu vaccines: aluminum, antibiotics, egg protein, formaldehyde, human aborted fetal apparatus (dead human tissue), monosodium glutamate (MSG), and thimerosol (mercury)."

Flu vaccines are directly linked to about a dozen cases of paralysis and brain damage each year. Many researchers believe these flu vaccine cocktails produce delayed reactions and long-term health consequences.

Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, a world-leading immunogeneticist, has extensively studied the effects of the flu vaccine on neurological health. The results of his research indicate that an individual has a 10-time greater chance of getting Alzheimer's disease after receiving five flu shots in the course of their life compared to individuals who have had zero to one shot in their lifetime.

Dr. Fudenberg and other researchers believe the increased risk of Alzheimer's is a result of the combination of mercury and aluminum within the flu vaccine. Individuals with poor blood sugar signaling and weakened anti-oxidant defense systems will bio-accumulate these heavy metals in areas of their brain with repeated vaccine and other environmental exposure.

Scientists take an educated guessFlu vaccines offer no guarantee of protection due to the wide variety of viral flu strains. There is no single virus that causes the flu and there is no single flu vaccine that protects against all strains. Scientists take an educated guess as to what three of over 300 different flu viruses they expect to have the greatest virulence in the upcoming year. The vaccine is then formulated from these three viruses.

When you get the flu vaccine, your body produces antibodies to three specific strains of the virus. So you basically have a three out of 300 chance (one percent) of being vaccinated for the proper viral strain. Additionally, the viruses are always adapting and may change form by the time you are exposed.

Even if you are fortunate enough to receive a vaccine for the proper strain of virus, it will be useless if your body hasn't produced a full response (which takes two weeks) or if there is too much time (over three months) between vaccine and viral exposure. The virus may have adapted over time to create a structure the body fails to recognize.

The vaccine will also be useless if your body doesn't produce enough of a response or too damaging a response due to high levels of viral exposure and poor immune coordination. The immune system could be acting blindly due to high sugar intake, low vitamin D3 levels, damaged gut lining and upper cervical subluxations among other things.

Sources for this article include: 




About the author:
Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information go to www.drjockers.com To find a Maximized Living doctor near you go to www.maximizedliving.com Dr. Jockers is also available for long distance phone consultations to help you beat disease and reach your health goals 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037323_flu_vaccines_junk_science_toxicity.html#ixzz29docKk00
Dr Mercola - read the full story and view the film here

Story at-a-glance
  • Award winning documentary offers a fresh look at what’s behind the sharply polarized vaccine debate in the U.S., and offers the opportunity for a new, more rational discussion about how to create safer and more effective public health policies to help our children stay healthy
  • Health officials insist vaccines are the best way to protect the health of individuals and the public. As a result, the number of doses of vaccines included in the childhood vaccination schedule has tripled over the past 30 years, increasing from 23 doses of seven different vaccines to 69 doses of 16 different vaccines. At the same time there has been a rise in the numbers of vaccinations given to children, we’ve also seen a significant rise in the numbers of children suffering with chronic disease and disabilities
  • According to Judicial Watch, 26 children died after receiving the HPV vaccine between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011. Other serious side effects reported during that time frame included paralysis, speech problems, memory loss, blindness, pancreatitis, ovarian cysts, and Guillain-Barre syndrome
  • According to one of the world’s top experts on HPV, the HPV vaccine is associated with enough serious side effects that it could prove riskier than the cancer it is supposed to prevent in women, as cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early enough through normal PAP screenings
  • Rigidly maintaining the assumption that an ever increasing number of vaccines must be mandated “for the greater good” is a dangerous assumption that fails to take into account the possibility that one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies may be contributing to the rise in chronic disease and disability among children
by Phillip Day


The com­mon cold is known and loathed by all but, as with other appar­ent ‘dis­or­ders’, is really just an elim­i­na­tion pro­ce­dure under­taken by the body. Those who get colds reg­u­larly need to exam­ine whether they are chal­leng­ing their immune sys­tem with stress, vit­a­min D defi­ciency, lack of exer­cise or foods their body is reject­ing: e.g. meat, cow’s milk, sugar, gluten from wheat, bar­ley, rye, etc. Cer­tainly, ‘snotty nosed’ kids who suf­fer from what I term ‘Nia­gara Nose’ gen­er­ally have a prob­lem with cow’s milk (I ded­i­cate a whole chap­ter in Health Wars to this sub­ject). The mucus formed is the body’s way of get­ting tox­ins out of the sys­tem. Food intol­er­ances, such as those with cow’s milk, may also present them­selves in kids, not only as colds, but as colic, rashes, diar­rhoea, bed­wet­ting, behav­ioural prob­lems, the ‘Ter­ri­ble Twos’ syn­drome, etc. (see Aller­gies)


Dry scratchy throat, gen­eral feel­ings of list­less­ness, headache, upper res­pi­ra­tory tract con­ges­tion, sneez­ing, etc. Influenza comes with a tem­per­a­ture, shiv­er­ing, shakes, etc. Thick mucus will be ejected through nose and mouth which con­tains dead organ­isms, tox­ins, white blood cells, and other debris the body is try­ing to expel. Colds gen­er­ally last from three to ten days while influenza can go on longer. Pro­tracted ill­ness may indi­cate a deeper prob­lem with immune func­tion, which might involve the patient being too stressed, zinc and mag­ne­sium defi­cient, extremely vitamin-D-deficient, not enough rest, inad­e­quate nutri­tion, dehy­dra­tion, etc.


Those with a robust immune sys­tem and a clean, detox­i­fied body do not suf­fer from colds. Chief causes of a depressed immune sys­tem will be lack of nutri­tious food, dehy­dra­tion, vit­a­min D defi­ciency, food aller­gies, a con­stant intake of refined sugar and sug­ary drinks, and stress, which depletes vit­a­min C reserves in the body due to over-production of adren­a­lin. Low lev­els of vit­a­min D are thought to be why we get most colds and flu in the win­ter. Opti­mis­ing your diet and D3 serum lev­els are the two best fac­tors for avoid­ing these problems.

Tra­di­tional treatments

Visit any phar­macy today and you’ll be con­fronted with racks of patented prod­ucts all claim­ing to do some­thing for the com­mon cold or flu. All most do is sup­press symp­toms rather than elim­i­nate the root cause of why your body found it nec­es­sary to clean itself out to begin with. In Wake up to Health in the 21st Cen­tury, Steve Ran­som high­lights many exam­ples of cons being per­pe­trated by com­pa­nies push­ing the lat­est flu and cold cures on a gullible pub­lic. Best avoid them all and address the root prob­lems instead.

Take action?

Turn­ing off the toxin tap to avoid colds will involve chang­ing diet in the way we have exam­ined with pre­vi­ous dis­or­ders, clear­ing the tox­ins out of the house (www.neways.com), boost­ing the immune sys­tem and assist­ing the body in elim­i­nat­ing the prob­lem rather than sup­press­ing the immune system’s abil­ity to do its job prop­erly (which is all most over-the-counter cold med­i­cines accom­plish any­way). Here are some point­ers for pre­ven­tion as well as remedy:

  • DIET: COMMENCE THE FOOD FOR THOUGHT LIFESTYLE REGIMEN, pay­ing spe­cial atten­tion to items to elim­i­nate. Ensure at least 80% of the food you eat is uncooked (raw), unre­fined, organic plant dietary. Remove dairy prod­ucts, includ­ing cheese, espe­cially with chil­dren. Keep meat to a min­i­mum or ide­ally elim­i­nate altogether
  • HYDRATION: Com­mence drink­ing half your body­weight (lbs) in ounces ADAY, i.e. a 120 lb female should drink 60 oz of water daily, which is around eight glasses. For most adults, 2–3 litres of water will suf­fice. Do not overdo
  • DIET: Half a tea­spoon (tsp) of unre­fined sea salt or, best, Himalayan salt for every ten glasses of water
  • Vit­a­min C com­plex (ascor­bates plus bioflavonoids), titrate to bowel tol­er­ance, so you’ll be tak­ing sig­nif­i­cant amounts 10 times through­out the day. If diar­rhoea results, back down dosage to just under thresh­old level (see A Guide to Nutri­tional Sup­ple­ments before tak­ing)
  • Be aware of where you are on the vit­a­min D serum scale and adjust accord­ingly. Dr Joseph Mer­cola advo­cates a heavy one-time dose of oralD3 to ‘get you into the game’ and ele­vate your D3 serum lev­els above 150 nmol/L (see A Guide to Nutri­tional Sup­ple­ments before tak­ing)
  • Allicin/Heartfast cap­sules, 6 – 10 a day
  • Vit­a­min A & E emul­sion, 20,000 – 25,000 IU per day dur­ing the cold
  • Zinc (ele­men­tal), 25 mg per day dur­ing the cold
  • Vit­a­min B High Potency Com­plex, 2 cap­sules a day
  • IMMUNE FUNCTION: Echi­nacea, 1 g, three times per day
  • IMMUNE FUNCTION: Astra­galus, 1 g, three times per day
  • TIP: Get plenty of rest. Potent immune fac­tors are released dur­ing deep rest. DO NOT exer­cise dur­ing the cold period but ensure you exer­cise reg­u­larly when you are well
  • TIP: Avoid stress! Very, very, very, very important….
Excerpted from The ABC’s of Dis­ease by Phillip Day

Copy­right 2012 Phillip Day

by Karl Loren (abridged)


The intro­duc­tion of cyto­toxic (chemo(toxico)therapy) chem­i­cal drugs into the (clas­sic) ther­a­peu­tic arse­nal took place quite recently and may be traced back to the dis­cov­ery, after World War II, of the anti-tumour effect of nitro­gen mus­tard {methyl-bis (chloorethy­lamine), (NSC, 762, CIBA, BOOTS}. The aim of these (toxico)chemotherapeutic drugs was, and still is, to kill can­cer cells left in tumours that can only partly, or not at all, be oper­ated and/or irra­di­ated; can­cer cells left after sur­gi­cal inter­ven­tion; or those arrived in the blood­streams. The absolute elim­i­na­tion of can­cer cells remains the ulti­mate goal of chemo(toxico)therapy. Accord­ing to the academic-medicine point of view, com­plete remis­sion can only be real­ized if can­cer cells are removed or killed. Con­se­quently, the pur­pose is to elim­i­nate a max­i­mum num­ber of can­cer cells, even if this means the inevitable killing of a num­ber of healthy cells. The chemo(toxico)therapeutic drugs (known so far) are not selec­tive and destroy both sound and malig­nant cells. There­fore, they are cyto­toxic (cell toxic) rather than tumour toxic. Through­out this work, we will con­tra­dict the assump­tion that can­cer (dis­ease) will be destroyed (the so-called regen­er­a­tion ad inte­grum). As a mat­ter of fact, more and more clas­sic can­cer researchers now start to dis­pute the belief in the effi­ciency of can­cer cell destruc­tion as the opti­mal way of cur­ing can­cer (12).

Whilst com­pil­ing this sur­vey our major con­cern was to give the reader the clear­est view pos­si­ble of what is being con­cealed by the med­ical estab­lish­ment. There­fore we have searched and reflected on the med­ical lit­er­a­ture world­wide so that the reader is aware that the bib­li­o­graphic exam­ples we have selected rep­re­sent merely the tip of a mas­sive ice­berg of what is being writ­ten in med­ical cir­cles about chemo(toxico) ther­a­peu­tics. The con­tents of these arti­cles is of less impor­tance to the reader as, in the major­ity of cases, the titles are more then self-explanatory.

The enu­mer­a­tion is far from com­plete and cov­ers in the main short peri­ods of time within the years men­tioned. The pro­por­tion of med­ical arti­cles on this sub­ject that we have quoted is infin­i­tes­i­mally small and the anthol­ogy that is cur­rently being pre­sented is only a small frac­tion of the lit­er­a­ture about the harm­ful side-effects of the ‘reme­dies’, com­pared to what has been pub­lished on the subject.

It is enough to envis­age the cancer-producing effects of these drugs to urge the utmost cau­tion, not to say sus­pi­cion, about this deadly ther­a­peu­tic arse­nal and those doc­tors who stub­bornly pro­mote it.

“There is only one dis­ease of which doc­tors can always cure us: our credulity with respect to them” (J. Petit-Senn).

The pur­pose of this sec­tion is man­i­fold. Its prin­ci­pal inten­tion is to pro­vide both patient and unspe­cialised gen­eral prac­ti­tioner with insight into the clas­sic ther­a­peu­tic arse­nal, the action of ther­a­peu­tic agents and, more par­tic­u­larly, the many side-effects which they pro­duce. This will enable the eman­ci­pated patient to decide con­sciously and with full knowl­edge of the facts, pro or against a spe­cific therapy.

Indeed, ‘spe­cial­ists’ tend to assume that the can­cer patient is not eman­ci­pated; the patient must not be too well or too pre­cisely informed, and he must actu­ally ‘undergo’ the treat­ment will­ingly as this rep­re­sents his only and best chance.

For this pur­pose, both sta­tis­tics about prog­noses, and side-effects of the ther­a­peu­tic agents used, are obscured.

Suc­cess sta­tis­tics are being manip­u­lated and fab­ri­cated in such an expert and sub­tle way that they give evi­dence of some man­i­fest and sig­nif­i­cant progress in the fight against can­cer. In med­ical cir­cles, this sys­tem­atic and large-scale deceit is excused by the con­cern ‘not to cause panic’ in can­cer patients who do not have any seri­ous alter­na­tive any­how than walk the clas­sic ther­a­peu­tic way. It goes with­out say­ing that not only are all alter­na­tive ways of treat­ment en bloc rejected for being use­less and even dan­ger­ous, but fur­ther­more, the hypoth­e­sis that a patient would pre­fer n o t to be treated and, con­se­quently, live the rest of his life in a qual­i­ta­tive more pos­i­tive way, is con­sid­ered to be non-existent. This is even more crim­i­nal because the fact that chemo(toxico)therapy would have any effect on can­cer patients’ life expec­ta­tions, is far from being proven. On the con­trary, com­par­a­tive stud­ies with non-treated patients have revealed that chemo(toxico) ther­apy does not pro­duce any life-prolonging effects (1). Untreated patients appear to live (sur­vive) at least as long as treated patients (2).

1. A first manip­u­la­tion of cure sta­tis­tics con­sists in the (the­o­retic) dis­tinc­tion which is made between early diag­nosed and late dis­cov­ered can­cer. The first kind would be easy to treat and even cur­able, whereas only those can­cers which are dis­cov­ered (too) late would be fatal.

The patient-directed infor­ma­tion pro­vided by the dif­fer­ent offi­cial national can­cer insti­tutes thus rep­re­sent the var­i­ous chances of recov­ery (= 5 years of sur­vival), accord­ing to the fact whether can­cer was dis­cov­ered early or (too) late. For car­ci­noma of the lung, early dis­cov­ery rep­re­sents 75% chance of recov­ery, while later dis­cov­ery only gives 20% chance. For car­ci­noma of the gul­let, recov­ery (or bet­ter, remis­sion) is pos­si­ble in 50% of early diag­nosed cases, but only in 2% (say two per­cent!) of late loca­tion. Stom­ach can­cers are cur­able in 90% of cases with early diag­no­sis, but only in 10% if the dis­ease is detected (too) late. Bil­iary duct can­cer is cur­able in 25% with early diag­no­sis and in barely 2% with late diag­no­sis. Can­cer of the intes­tine offer 80% chance of recov­ery with early dis­cov­ery but only 30% if the diag­no­sis is car­ried out late. Can­cers of female sex­ual organs offer 75 in 100 chances of being cured of the diag­no­sis takes place in time. With late diag­no­sis there are hardly 5 chances in 100 to reach the five years’ limit. Breast can­cers offer 85% and 25% respec­tively, kid­ney can­cers 75% and 20%, prostate can­cers 80% and 2 to 3% (!) accord­ing to early or late diag­no­sis. For blad­der can­cers, the chance of sur­vival is 90% in the early stage and 15% in the late stage. Can­cers of the osseous sys­tem may be reme­died in 85% of cases when they were located early; oth­er­wise, there is only a chance of 2%! Blood can­cers and can­cers of the haematopoi­etic sys­tem make a chance of 50% of remis­sion with early detec­tion and only 5% when the can­cer is dis­cov­ered late (3).

A sug­gested con­clu­sion from the above is that can­cer can indeed be reme­died in a large per­cent­age of cases … if only it is detected in time. Fig­ures are then quite hope­ful: lung can­cer 75% chances of sur­vival, stom­ach can­cer 90%, breast can­cer 85%, blad­der can­cers 90%, etc. If, on the other hand, can­cer is dis­cov­ered in a late stage — but who would ever count him­self among this cat­e­gory — fig­ures are alarm­ing : only very low per­cent­ages of sur­vival chances.

The trick — or swin­dle — how­ever con­sists in that the the­o­retic early-stage model upon which the entire favourable prog­no­sis sta­tis­tics are built, is unap­proach­able in prac­tice. The hope­ful early stage, which is referred to in the sta­tis­tics, is sit­u­ated at a level when the tumour hardly counts some 4000 cells and has reached a diam­e­ter of 0.06 cm. (i.e. after the 13th cell divi­sion). At this level, the first micro metas­tases are already devel­op­ing, which will escape all forms of later clas­sic ther­apy. This (real) early stage is purely the­o­ret­i­cal because at this moment it is not (yet) pos­si­ble to be located by means of cur­rent mod­ern diag­nos­tic meth­ods. Only from the 21st cell divi­sion onwards, when the tumour counts two mil­lion cells and has acquired a diam­e­ter of 1 cm., diag­no­sis becomes fea­si­ble. How­ever, even in the ter­mi­nol­ogy used by the sta­tis­tics, this is already con­sid­ered to be a late stage and more alarm­ing per­cent­ages of sur­vival will occur. If one is lucky and has a diag­nos­tic exam­i­na­tion pre­cisely at the moment when the tumour reaches the 21st cell divi­sion — a rarely occur­ring case — even then, the early stage indi­cated by sta­tis­tics has been long exceeded and the cat­e­gory of very low per­cent­ages of sur­vival has already been reached; 20% for car­ci­noma of the lung, 10% for car­ci­noma of the stom­ach, 2% for gul­let can­cer, etc.

These most alarm­ingly low fig­ures apply in the major­ity of cases — the so-called early diag­no­sis is hardly over obtained — and rep­re­sent, more­over, the real remis­sion chances for the dif­fer­ent forms of can­cer. In a recent report, the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion (W.H.O.) (4) has con­firmed that hardly any progress in the fight against can­cer has been made over the past 25 years. Death fol­low­ing cer­tain widely spread forms of can­cer has even increased in a ter­ri­fy­ing way.

Over the period 1960–1985 can­cer mor­tal­ity was com­pared in 28 indus­trial coun­tries (5). It appeared that death due to can­cer has increased in gen­eral by 58% for men, and by 40% for women. Today, 40% more men and 200% more women die from can­cer of the lung than twenty-five years ago. The chance to die from breast can­cer between the ages of 45 and 64 is nowa­days 37% higher than in 1960 (6), and con­se­quently, the num­ber of can­cer cases also increased in that pro­por­tion. If it had not been for this cor­rec­tion, mor­tal­ity fig­ures in 1985 would have been even higher. Only death as a con­se­quence of stom­ach can­cers has declined by 12% in 25 years. How­ever, the W.H.O.-report does not ascribe this declined mor­tal­ity with regard to stom­ach can­cers to any ther­a­peu­tic progress, but rather to improved liv­ing and eat­ing patterns :

“In addi­tion it would appear that such fac­tors as non-specific life-style changes have been the major cause of decline in stom­ach can­cer” (7).

2. A sec­ond manip­u­la­tion of sta­tis­tics is the intro­duc­tion of an unsci­en­tific ele­ment in the sta­tis­tic jug­gling of med­icracy, namely the begin­ning of the five years’ remis­sion period. It is obvi­ous that this period will be longer or shorter accord­ing to the fact whether the patient goes to see the doc­tor from the first sus­pi­cious moment, or only after he has expe­ri­enced cer­tain dis­com­forts. In the first case — the hypochon­driac patient — the remis­sion period will start off much sooner than in the sec­ond case. Sta­tis­ti­cally, the first patient will there­fore ‘sur­vive’ longer than the sec­ond with­out the chemo(toxico)therapy (or other) treat­ment hav­ing any­thing to do with it. As far as sta­tis­tics are con­cerned, how­ever, it is the treat­ment which has facil­i­tated the longer sur­vival. This evi­dence which has incor­po­rated in the remis­sion sta­tis­tics may be com­pared with the equally evi­dent ‘ascer­tain­ment’ : the younger the per­son, the bet­ter his/her chance of a longer life. The lat­ter evi­dence only dif­fers from the for­mer in that it was not ele­vated to a ‘med­ical success’.

This sup­ple­men­tary deceit of fig­ures helps, fur­ther­more, to keep up the myth ‘the ear­lier dis­cov­ered, the bet­ter the chances of recov­ery. Indeed, the first patient in the above cited exam­ple was lucky to have an ‘early’ diag­no­sis and will there­fore (?) sur­vive longer. For the sec­ond patient, the diag­no­sis was set ‘late’ and there­fore (?) he will not live as long. It goes with­out say­ing that the ther­apy has noth­ing to do with it and that the longer sur­vival is only owing to the fact that the count­ing off was started sooner. Nev­er­the­less, such cases are put on by the med­ical estab­lish­ment in order to for­tify ther­apy successes.

3. A third pur­po­sive and straight fal­si­fi­ca­tion of recov­ery sta­tis­tics con­sists in the assump­tion that the ‘remis­sion’ limit of five years is only reached thanks to chemo(toxico)therapy treat­ment. This results, in fact, in the pos­tu­la­tion that untreated patients do not have any chance of reach­ing the 5 years’ sur­vival. This hypoth­e­sis is even more mali­cious because — as we men­tioned before — inves­ti­ga­tion has revealed that untreated patient lived (sur­vived) (at least) as long as chemo(toxico) ther­apy treated patient.

The real fig­ure of recov­er­ies can only be obtained by mak­ing the dif­fer­ence between the five years’ chance of sur­vival of all patients after treat­ment, and the five years’ chance of sur­vival of the same patient if they had been left untreated. Thus the effec­tive­ness of treat­ment could be mea­sured and quan­ti­fied. In med­ical cir­cles, how­ever, nat­ural sur­vival with can­cer is con­fused and put on a par with the effec­tive­ness of a med­ical treat­ment. It is not with­out any cyn­i­cism that we remind of the fact that the med­ical estab­lish­ment accepts and pro­claims that can­cer patients who are treated in the clas­sic med­ical way ‘sur­vive’, and owe this exclu­sively to the ther­apy they fol­lowed. When, on the other hand, dif­fer­ently or non-treated patients also ‘sur­vive’ — and in much bet­ter cir­cum­stances — they are said to have expe­ri­enced a ‘spon­ta­neous remission’ …

4. How­ever, the med­ical lobby tends to use many more sophisms in order to prove their suc­cesses. Under the cover of ‘pre­fer­ring the cer­tain to the uncer­tain’, bor­der­line or dubi­ous cases have lately been diag­nosed and treated more and more like can­cers. In itself a noble moti­va­tion, of only the applied treat­ment were not as muti­lat­ing and its effi­ciency not as doubt­ful. So, for exam­ple, terms have been intro­duced for quasi-cancer dis­eases such as dys­pla­sia (defor­ma­tion), car­ci­noma in situ (can­cer which has not yet bro­ken enough the tis­sue struc­ture), pre-carcinoma and micro-invasive can­cers (8).

This enriched med­ical vocab­u­lary describ­ing quasi– and pseudo-cancers and, the inevitably ensu­ing con­fu­sion have already pro­duced a ter­ri­fy­ing num­ber of unnec­es­sary muti­lat­ing oper­a­tions (espe­cially in the genealog­i­cal sec­tor and on either side of the female navel) (9) and even harm­ful chemo(toxico)therapeutic oper­a­tions (10).

It goes with­out say­ing that if non-cancers, pseudo– and quasi-cancers are regarded as can­cers ‘by way of pre­cau­tion’, the chances of recov­ery increase with the num­ber of thus diag­nosed pseudo-cancers.

5. Another fatal con­se­quence of this med­i­cratic deceit may be illus­trated by the fol­low­ing exam­ple. When, for exam­ple, an expe­ri­enced physi­cian suc­ceeds in dis­cov­er­ing by means of pal­pa­tion, a mass with a diam­e­ter of hardly 1 cm. in the prostate gland which, after histopatho­log­i­cal inves­ti­ga­tion appears to be a can­cer, and if it is removed by surgery, the patient will prob­a­bly reach the five years’ limit and be declared free of can­cer, thus adding another case to the list of med­ical suc­cesses. The dan­ger that lurks in this diag­no­sis is that the micro metasti­si­sa­tion had already taken place before the oper­a­tion (11) (dur­ing the oper­a­tion, more malig­nant cells may have arrived into the blood­streams (12)) and that a new pre-cancerous phase has been devel­oped which most prob­a­bly after five, but cer­tainly within ten or fif­teen years, will pro­duce a new tumour, while clas­sic ther­apy will be inca­pable of avoid­ing this. For indeed, the ther­a­peu­tic arse­nal of aca­d­e­mic med­i­cine is only armed against tumours and com­pletely ignores the ini­tial phase, the can­cer dis­ease which pre­cedes the tumour phase. Bio­log­i­cal alter­na­tive ther­a­pies on the other hand do have an eye for the can­cer­ous dis­ease and, for the pre-cancerous lead-up which takes many years, and claim to be capa­ble of elim­i­nat­ing the dis­ease in the pre-tumourous stage. How­ever, med­icracy usu­ally deprives the can­cer patient of this pos­si­bil­ity. In this case, the alter­na­tive meth­ods do not even enter the (pri­vate hunting-) field of aca­d­e­mic med­i­cine, because, as we have said before, clas­sic ther­apy does not even claim to com­bat the pre-cancerous lead-up phase. Alter­na­tive approaches there­fore are the only and, con­se­quently, the best chances of pre­vent­ing the ‘cured’ can­cer from being suc­ceeded by a new one. Nonethe­less, this alter­na­tive is being denied to the ‘cured’ patient who takes his dec­la­ra­tion of recov­ery much too lit­er­ally and irrevocably.

As a con­clu­sion we may openly accuse (and regret) that the med­ical world — for what­ever rea­son or pur­pose — reverts to an unmit­i­gated, sub­tle mech­a­nism of fal­si­fi­ca­tion which it has been built into med­ical sta­tis­tics, thus ascrib­ing their pre­tended suc­cess — which rests on noth­ing else but deceit — to an irrev­o­ca­bly muti­lat­ing surgery and an unde­ni­able toxic (and often cancer-producing and muta­genic) chemo– and radiotherapy.

This orga­nized sta­tis­ti­cal deceit is built in on dif­fer­ent lev­els with a syn­er­gis­tic fal­si­fy­ing effect. Recapitulating :

1. Unap­proach­ably early diag­nosed can­cers would entail very high chances of remis­sion — which are held out to the out­side world — and ‘only’ the can­cers which are dis­cov­ered too late are almost always fatal. The real mor­tal­ity of can­cer is put under the cover of late dis­cov­ered can­cers : 80% mor­tal­ity with car­ci­noma of the lung, 90% mor­tal­ity with stom­ach can­cer, 98% death risk with gul­let can­cer, etc. It is sug­gested more­over, that early diag­no­sis will dras­ti­cally cur­tail these mor­tal­ity fig­ures, which would in effect be true if it would be pos­si­ble, as far as meth­ods, mate­r­ial and tech­nique are con­cerned, to make ‘early diag­noses’, which is not the case with cur­rent med­ical possibilities.

2. The counting-off of the five years’ remis­sion period — and not some treat­ment method suc­cess — is deci­sive for the longer or the shorter period of survival.

3. The med­ical estab­lish­ment con­fuses will­ingly or know­ingly ‘nat­ural’ chances of sur­vival with ther­a­peu­tic suc­cesses, a favour which they refuse to acknowl­edge when judg­ing extra-medical successes.

4. Bor­der­line and dubi­ous (quasi– and pseudo-cancers) cases are ‘by way of pre­cau­tion’ con­sid­ered more and more as can­cers, and suc­cesses increase pro­por­tion­ally with the wrongly diag­nosed can­cers. And again, this is a favour which is strongly denied to the alter­na­tive treat­ments : a patient ‘cured’ by the alter­na­tive way is surely a patient who had a ‘dubi­ous’ or ‘unre­li­able’ can­cer diagnosis.

5. To con­sider a remis­sion of sev­eral years as free of can­cer and a ther­apy suc­cess, when there is a good, to very good chance that a new pre-cancerosis has begun, pre­cisely under the influ­ence of (muta­genic and can­ceri­genic) radio– or chemother­apy which will break open vehe­mently — though after the blessed dec­la­ra­tion of free­dom of can­cer — is a last described deceit­ful pre­sen­ta­tion on account of med­ical establishment.

In this sec­tion we intend to pro­vide patients and doc­tors in good faith with a real­is­tic pic­ture of the ther­apy suc­cesses and their side-effects. For more than five years we have been sift­ing, exhaus­tively, clas­sic med­ical lit­er­a­ture, the result of which will be reflected in this chap­ter. It pro­vides a real­is­tic inside-look on chemo(toxico)therapy as it is known in med­ical cir­cles, but which is care­fully and sys­tem­at­i­cally being con­cealed extra muros. For this delib­er­ate sup­pres­sion of essen­tial infor­ma­tion, the med­ical corps appeals once more to the une­man­ci­pated posi­tion of the patient who might per­haps pre­fer to be treated dif­fer­ently, or not at all, and long for a more wor­thy life-ending instead of the muti­lated sur­vival! The patient is deprived of this option in a well-orchestrated, Machi­avel­lian way. The right to live becomes the duty to sur­vive accord­ing to the rules of cur­rent med­ical art.

This sec­tion aims at refut­ing the myth that chemo(toxico)therapy would be the only effi­cient way to fight can­cer. It is indis­pens­able that the can­cer patient knows, and real­izes, that he may suc­cumb to his chemo(toxico)therapeutic treat­ment, or con­tract a sec­ond can­cer (most ther­a­peu­tic agents are cancer-producing!) and that, if he is favoured with a ‘sur­vival period’, he will cer­tainly have to ‘live’ with numer­ous side-effects, going from banal diges­tive upsets, to haem­or­rhage, impair­ment (reversible or oth­er­wise) of the blood image, mar­row, liver, blad­der, lung, heart, etc., not to men­tion the per­ma­nent (but well-founded) fear for muta­genic and cancer-producing side-effects of chemother­apy agents. Non-cancer patients may be con­fronted with these expected iatro­genic effects as well. Indeed, non-malignant (such as rheuma­tism, pso­ri­a­sis) are ‘treated’ with such anti-cancer agents.

In a period when the right to self-determination, eman­ci­pa­tion, women’s right to decide on abor­tion, all sorts of lib­er­ties, are in everybody’s mind, it makes no sense that only the (can­cer) patient would be con­sid­ered and treated as une­man­ci­pated and that ‘in his own inter­est’ he would be kept igno­rant about what he is up against. All ele­ments must be pre­sented to him, thus enabling him to make his own deci­sion in a con­scious way and with full knowl­edge of the facts — a deci­sion of life and death, for that matter!

The side-effects of chemother­apy drugs are gen­er­ally cat­e­go­rized in the med­ical stud­ies as fol­lows, accord­ing to their ‘site of action’ :

1. DIGESTIVE UPSETS (NAUSEA, VOMITING, ANOREXIA, STOMATITIS,DIARRHOEA, ETC.): SCHEIN, P.S., MACDONALS, J.S., WATERS, C.,HAIDAK,D., Nutri­tional com­pli­ca­tions of can­cer and its treat­ment, Semin. Oncol., Dec. 1975; 2 (4): 337–347; DREIZEN, S., Stom­a­to­toxic man­i­fes­ta­tions of can­cer chemother­apy, J. Pros­thet. Dent., Dec. 1978; HYSON, E.A., BURRELL, M.,TOFFLER, R., Drug-induced gas­tro intesti­nal dis­ease, Gas­troin­test. Radiol., 20 Dec. 1977; 2 (3): 183–212; OHNOMA, T., HOLLAND, J.F., Nutri­tional con­se­quences of can­cer chemother­apy and immunother­apy, Can­cer Res., July 1977, 37 (7 Pt 2): 2395–2406; N.N., Can­cer chemother­apy the inbuilt deter­rent, Br. Med. J., 24 Nov. 1979; 2 (6201): 1312–1313; SCHUM, C.A., IZUTSU, K.T.,MOLBO, D.M., TRUELOVE, E.L., GALLUCCI,B., Changes in sali­vary buffer capac­ity in patients under­go­ing can­cer chemother­apy, J. Oral. Med., Jul-Sept., 1979; 34 (3): 76–80; SCOGNA, D.M., SMALLEY, R.V., Chemotherapy-induced nau­sea and vom­it­ing, Am J. Nurs., Sept. 1979; 79 (9): 1562–1564; KENNEDY, M.,PACKARD, R., GRANT, M.M., PADILLA, G.V., Chemother­apy related nau­sea and vom­it­ing: a sur­vey to iden­tify prob­lems and inter­ven­tions, Oncol. Nurs. Forum, Win­ter 1981; 8 (1): 19–22.

2. AFFECTIONS OF THE SKIN AND MUCUOUS MEMBRANE (ALL SORTS OFAFFECTIONS, NAIL DAMAGE, ALOPECIA, ETC.): NIXON, D.W, Alter­ations in nail pig­ment with can­cer chemother­apy, Arch. Intern. Med., Oct. 1976; 136 (10): 1117–1118; DREIZEN, S., BODEY, G.P., RODRIGUEZ, V., McCREDIE, K.B., Cuta­neous com­pli­ca­tions of can­cer chemother­apy, Post­grad. Med., Nov. 1975; 58 (6): 150–158; BARAN, R., Pig­men­ta­tion of the nail (chromonynchia), J. Der­ma­tol. Surg. Oncol., Mar. 1978; 4 (3): 250–254; GAUCI, L., SERROU, B., Changes in hair pig­men­ta­tion asso­ci­ated with can­cer chemother­apy, Can­cer Treat. Rep., Jan. 1980; 64 (1): 193.

3. HAEMATOPOIETIC ALTERATION (IMMUNO-DEPRESSION, BLOODCOMPOSITION ALTERATION, ETC.): JEDRZEJCZAK, W.W., SIEKIERZYNSKI, M., CZARNECKI, C., DZIUK, E., Pat­terns of changes in periph­eral blood com­po­si­tion in the course of com­bi­na­tion chemother­apy of can­cer, Strahlen­ther­a­pie, Nov. 1976; 152 (5): 469–476; BODEY G.P., RODRIGUEZ, V., McCREDIE, K.B.,FREIREICH, E.J., Neu­trope­nia and infec­tion fol­low­ing can­cer chemother­apy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., Jan. — Feb. 1976; 1 (3–4): 301–304; VAN DERHOEVEN, L., CHANG, J.C., Dis­or­ders of gran­u­lo­cytes induced by toxic agents, Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., Sept. — Oct. 1976; 6 (5): 415–422; TATTERSHALL, M.H., Aggres­sive can­cer treat­ment and its role in pre­dis­pos­ing to infec­tion, Eur. J. Can­cer, Aug. 1975; 11 Suppl.: 9–19; RENOUX, M., BERNARD, J.F., TORRES, M.,SCHLEGEL, N., AMAR, M., LOPEZ, M., BOIVIN, P., Ery­thro­cyte abnor­mal­i­ties induced by chemother­apy and radio­ther­apy: induc­tion of pre leukaemic state., Scand. J. Hema­tol., Oct. 1978; 21 (4): 323–332; FERRARO, E.F., Impli­ca­tions of anti neo­plas­tic ther­apy, Dent. Surv., Febr. 1978; 54 (2): 32–33; MASON, B.A.,KLUG, P.P., COHEN, P., Bone mar­row necro­sis dur­ing chemother­apy for lym­phoma, J.A.M.A., 20 Mar. 1978; 239 (12): 1158; BADHURI, S., RASHE, H.,KÖHLE, W., DIETRICH, M., Blut­gerin­nungsstu­dien bei Patien­ten mit akuter Leukämie vor und nach zyto­sta­tis­cher Chemother­a­pie, Verh. Dtsch. Ges. Inn. Med., 17–21 Apr. 1977; 83: 1142–1144; KAKISHITA, E., YOSHIMURA, S., Influ­ence of anti can­cer chemother­apy on haemo­sta­tic mech­a­nism (Japan­ese), Rin­sho Byori, Dec. 1977, 25 (12): 985–991; NERI, A., BRUGIATELLI, M., COMIS, M.,IACOB, P., NOBILE, F., PACIUCCI, P.A., LOMBARDO, V.T., Severe acute hyper­kalaemia fol­low­ing chemother­apy, Haema­to­log­ica (Pavia), Jun. 197 ***; 62 (3): 331–332; KREPLER, P., Infec­tions in chil­dren with malig­nant dis­ease, Wien. Klin. Wochen­schr., 9 Nov. 1979; 91 (21): 707–71 *** ; RYBALBA, A.M., Pre­ven­tion and treat­ment of haemapoi­etic dis­or­ders dur­ing the chemother­apy of malig­nant ovar­ian tumours (Ukran­ian), Pedri­atr. Akush. Ginekol., Sept. — Oct. 1979; (5): 45–46; ETIEMBLE, J., BERNARD, J.F., PICAT, C., BELPOMME, D., BOIVIN, P., Red blood cell enzyme abnor­mal­i­ties in patients treated with chemother­apy, Br. J. Haema­tol., Jul. 1979; 42 (3): 391–398: HAROUSSEAU, J.L., TOBELEM, G.,SCHAISON, G., JACQUILLAT, C., Leucémies aigues lym­phoblas­tiques hyper­leu­co­cy­taires: prob­lèmes d’urgence au cours du traite­ment ini­tial, Nouv. Presse Méd., 19 May 1979; 8 (22): 1827–1830; LY, B., SOLHEIM, B.G., SKAR, A.G., Gran­u­lo­cy­tope­nia and infec­tions dur­ing induc­tion ther­apy of acute leukaemia (Nor­we­gian), Tidsskr. Nor. Laege­foren, Febr. 1981; 101 (6): 379–386.

4. AFFECTION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS (STERILITY, IMPOTENCE,AZOOSPERMIA, AMENORRHEA, GYNECOMASTIA, ETC.): RUSSEL, J.A.,POWLES, R.L., OLIVER, R.T., Con­cep­tion and con­gen­i­tal abnor­mal­i­ties after chemother­apy of acute myel­oge­nous leukaemia in two men, Br. Med. J., 19 Jun. 1976; 1 (6024): 1508; SIRIS, E.S., LEVENTHAL, B.G., VAITUKAITIS, J.L., Effects of child­hood leukaemia and chemother­apy on puberty and repro­duc­tive func­tion in girls, N. Engl. J. Med., 20 May 1976; 294 (21): 1143–1146; ASBJORNSEN, G., MOLNE, K., KLEPP, O., AAKVAAG, A., Tes­tic­u­lar func­tion after com­bi­na­tion chemother­apy for Hodgkin’s dis­ease, Scand. J. Haema­tol., Jan. 1976; 16 (1): 66–69; DI LIBERTI, J.H., Ter­ato­ge­n­e­sis and chemother­apy, Ann. Intern. Med., Nov. 1974; 81 (5): 709; SUTCLIFFE, S.B., Cyto­toxex chemother­apy and gonadal func­tion in patients with Hodgkin’s dis­ease, J.A.M.A., 26 Oct. 1979; 242 (17): 1898–1899; CHAPMAN, R.M., SUTCLIFFE, S.B., MALPAS, J.S., Cytotoxic-induced ovar­ian fail­ure in Hodgkin’s dis­ease. Effects on sex­ual func­tion, J.A.M.A., 26 Oct. 1979; 242 (17): 1882–1884; GLASS, A.R., BERENBERG, J., Gyneco­mas­tia after chemother­apy for lym­phoma, Arch. Intern. Med., Sept. 1979; 139 (9): 1048–1049; RUSTIN, G.J., BAGSHAWE, K.D., NEWLANDS, E.S., BEGENT, R.H., Cyto­toxic drugs and steril­ity, Lancet, 13 Jun. 1981; 1 (8233): 1316; THORNELDE, W.F., Cytotoxic-induced ovar­ian fail­ure in Hodgkin’s dis­ease, J.A.M.A., 1 Aug. 1980; 244 (5): 435.

5. RENAL AND LIVER DAMAGE: JAYABOSE, S., SHENDE, A., LANZKOWSKY, P., Hepa­to­tox­i­c­ity of chemother­apy fol­low­ing nephrec­tomy and radi­a­tion ther­apy for right-sided Willms tumour, J. Pedi­atr., May 1976; 88 (5): 898; KANFER, A., ROLAND, J., CHATELET, F., RICHET, G., Insuff­i­sance rénale aigue hyper­phos­phatémique au cours d’un lym­phosar­come, J. Urol. Nephrol., (Paris), Apr. — May 1979; 85 (4–5): 337.

6. IMPAIRMENT OF THE OSSEOUS (SKELETAL) SYSTEM: IHDE, D.C.,DEVITA, V.T., Osteonecro­sis of the femoral head in patients with lym­phoma treated with inter­mit­tent com­bi­na­tion chemother­apy, Can­cer, Nov. 1975; 36 (5): 1585–1588.

7. PULMONARY DISEASES: KÜHBÖCK, S., Lun­gen­fi­brosen nach Behand­lung mit Zyto­sta­tika, Wien. Med. Wochen­schr., 1 Oct. 1976; 126 (40): 568–570;CAUBARRERE, I., Les pneu­mopathies infectueuses au cours de la chimio­thérapie des hémopathies malignes, Rev. Prat., 21 May 1976; 26 (29): 2051–2060; SIZOD, W., WOLVIUS, G.G., Pneumocystis-pneumonie als com­pli­catie bij cyto­sta­tis­che ther­a­pie, Ned­erl. Tijd­schr. Geneeskunde, 6 Mar. 1976; 120 (10): 418–424; SAUER, E., GULLOTTA, U., FINK, U., Akute bei­d­seit­ige Lun­gen­in­fil­tra­tion als Kom­p­lika­tion der Zyto­sta­tis­chen Ther­a­pie, Dtsch. Med. Wochen­schr., 10 Oct. 1975; 100 (41): 2098–2101; OKITA, H., ITO, K., TAKETOMI, Y., FUJIMURA, K.,KURAMOTO, A., Four patients with leukaemia who showed espe­cially a typ­i­cal type of inter­sti­tial pneu­mo­nia, prob­a­bly caused fol­low­ing the admin­is­tra­tion of anti-leukaemic drugs (Japan­ese), Jpn. J. Clin. Hema­tol., 30 Jul. 1974; 15 (7): 764–773; HERMANSKY, F., BENESOVA, E., CHMEL, J., JIRAK, A., Pul­monary com­pli­ca­tions caused by cyto­sta­tic treat­ment (Czech), Vnitr. Lek., Jun. 1977; 23 (7): 695–701; DEMETER, S.L., AHAMD, M., TOMASHEKSKI, J.F., Drug-induced pul­monary dis­ease, Cleve. Clin. Q., Fall 1979; 46 (3): 113–124; ZHU, G.Y., Acute pul­monary edema dur­ing chemother­apy of late stage tumors (Chi­nese), Chung Hua Chieh Ho Ho Hu Hsi Hsi Chi Ping Tsa Chih, Dec. 1980; 3 (4): 201–202.

8. MUTAGENIC (CANCER-CAUSING) CHANGES: MAJSKY, A., JAKOUBKOVA, J., ABRAHAMOVA, J., Chemother­apy one of the causes of tran­sient loss of HLAanti­gens and lym­pho­cyte poly-reactivity in patients with blood dis­eases and malig­nan­cies, J. Immuno­genet., Dec. 1976; 3 (6): 429–433; ROSS, G.T., Con­gen­i­tal anom­alies among chil­dren born of moth­ers receiv­ing chemother­apy for ges­ta­tional tro­phoblas­tic neo­plasms, Can­cer, Feb. 1976; 37 (2 Suppl.): 1043–1047;POLEKSIC, S., YEUNG, K.Y., Rapid devel­op­ment of ker­a­toan­can­thoma and accel­er­ated trans­for­ma­tion into squa­mous cell car­ci­noma of the skin: a muta­genic effect of poly­chemother­apy in a patient with Hodgkin’s dis­ease, Can­cer, Jan. 1978; 41 (1): 12–16; SCHAISON, G., JACQUILLAT, C., AUCLERC, G., WEIL, M., Les risques foeto-embryonnaires des chimio­thérapies, Bull. Can­cer (Paris), 1979; 66 (2): 165–170; SAKALOVA, A., BENKO, J., IZAKOVIC, V., Anti tumor­ous ther­apy and its con­se­quences upon gra­vid­ity and foe­tus (Slo­va­kian), Cesk. Gynekol., May 1979; 44 (4): 272–276; SCHADER, A.I., Ter­ato­genic effects of anti leukaemia chemother­apy, Arch. Intern. Med., Mar. 1981; 141 (4): 514–515;KAEMPFER, S.H., The effects of can­cer chemother­apy on repro­duc­tion: a review of the lit­er­a­ture, Oncol. Nurs. Forum, Win­ter 1981; 8 (1): 11–18.

9. CANCER-PRODUCING SIDE-EFFECTS: HAQUE, T., LUTCHER, C., FAGUET, G., TALLEDI, O., Chemotherapy-associated acute myel­oge­nous leukaemia and ovar­ian car­ci­noma, Am. J. Med. Sci., Sept. — Oct. 1976; 272 (2): 225–228;JOCHIMSEN, P.R., PEARLMAN, N.W., LAWTON, R.L., Pan­cre­atic car­ci­noma as a sequel to ther­apy of lym­phoma, J. Surg. Oncol., 1976; 8 (6): 461–464;SEIDENFELD, A.M., SMYTHE, H.A., OGRYZLO, M.A., UROWITZ, M.B.,DOTTEN, D.A., Acute leukaemia in rheuma­toid arthri­tis treated with cyto­toxic agents, J. Rheuma­tol., Sept. 1976; 3 (3): 295–304; ROBERTS, M.M., Acute leukaemia after immuno­sup­pres­sive ther­apy, Lancet, 9 Oct. 1976; 2 (7989): 768–770; KUIS, W., DE KRAKER, J., KUIJTEN, R.H., DONCKERWOLCKE, R.A.,VOUTE, P.A., Acute lym­phoblas­tic leukaemia after treat­ment of nephrotic syn­drome with immuno­sup­pres­sive drugs, Helv. Pae­di­atr. Acta, Jun. 1976; 31 (1): 91–95; NAESS, K., Can­cer of the pan­creas chem­i­cally induced. Can drugs play a role? (Nor­we­gian), Tidsskr. Nor. Laege­foren, 10 Jun. 1976; 96(16): 949;STECHMILLER, B., WIERNIK, P.H., SHIN, M., SATTERFIELD, J., Metasta­tic ter­a­to­car­ci­noma fol­low­ing chemother­apy. Mat­u­ra­tion to a mass patho­log­i­cally indis­tin­guish­able from a medi­asti­nal enteric cyst, Chest, May 1976; 69 (5): 697–700;JAFFE, N., Late side-effects of treat­ment: skele­tal, genetic, cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem and onco­genic, Pedi­atr. Clin. N. Am., Feb. 1976; 23 (1): 233–244; MEADOWS, A.T., D’ANGIO, G.J., EVANS, A.E., HARRIS, C.C., MILLER, R.W., MIKE, V., Onco­ge­n­e­sis and other late effects of can­cer treat­ment in chil­dren, Radi­ol­ogy, Jan. 1975; 114 (1): 175–180; SCHWARZ, J.H., CANELLOS, G.P., YOUNG, R.C.,DEVITA, V.T. Jr., Meningeal leukaemia in the blas­tic phase of chronic gran­u­lo­cytic leukaemia, Am. J. Med., Dec. 1975, 59 (6): 819–829; TERRACINI, B., Il ruolo di alcuni far­maci nell’ezioologia dei tumori delle vie uri­narie, Can­cro, 1973; 26 (3): 185–188; LI, F.P., CASSADY, J.R., JAFFE, N., Risk of sec­ond tumours in sur­vivors of child­hood can­cer, Can­cer, Apr. 1975: 35 (4): 1230–1235; CARTER, S.K., Sec­ond tumours com­pli­cat­ing can­cer ther­apy, Haema­tol. Blut­trans­fus., 1978; 22: 41–44; BOIVIN, P., Les leucémies induites par la radio­thérapie ou par la chimio­thérapie peuvent-elles êtres prévues? Nouv. Presse Méd., 9 Sept. 1979; 7 (29): 2533–2534; LEGLER, F., Karzino­genese durch Schad­stoffe aus der Umwelt, Phar­maka und Ernährungs­ge­wohn­heiten, Oeff. Gesund­heitswes., Oct. 1978; 40 (10): 653–662; SCHULER, D., Iatro­genic car­cino­gen­e­sis (Hun­gar­ian), Orv. Hetil., 10 Sept. 1978; 119 (37): 2239–2243; ROSNER, F., Is chemother­apy car­cino­genic?, Can­cer, Jan. Feb. 1978; 28 (1): 57–59; PENN, I., Malig­nan­cies asso­ci­ated with immuno­sup­pres­sive or cyto­toxic ther­apy, Surgery, May 1978; 83 (5): 492–502;NIEWEG, H.O., Iatro­gene leukaemie, Ned­erl. Tijd­schr. Geneesk., 25 Mar. 1978; 122 (12): 398–401; MULDER, N.H., HOUWEN, B., Behan­de­len en vooruitzien. Acute leukaemie na behan­del­ing van een andere kwaadaardige ziekte, Ned­erl. Tijd­schr. Geneesk., 25 Mar. 1978; 122 (12): 385–399; ERSKINE, J.G., WANG, I.,HUTTON, M.M., Chronic gran­u­lo­cytic leukemia devel­op­ing upon a fol­lic­u­lar lym­phoma, Br. Med. J., 19 Nov. 1977; 2 (6098): 1329; CADMAN, E.C., CAPIZZI, R.L., BERTINO, J.R., Acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia: a delayed com­pli­ca­tion of Hodgkin’s dis­ease ther­apy: analy­sis of 109 cases, Can­cer, Sept. 1977; 40 (3): 1280–1296; CHABNER, B.A., Sec­ond neo­plasm a com­pli­ca­tion of can­cer chemother­apy, N. Engl. J. Med., 28 Jul. 1977, 297 (4): 213–215; KURTIDES, E.S., Breast can­cer, chemother­apy and sec­ond malig­nant neo­plasms, J.A.M.A., 4 Jul. 1977; 238 (1): 28–29; WOLF, M.M., COOPER, I.A., DING, J.C., Hodgkin’s dis­ease ter­mi­nat­ing in acute leukaemia: a report of seven cases, Austr. N. Z. J. Med., Aug. 1979; 9 (4): 398–402; KAHN, M.F., ARLET, J., BLOCH-MICHEL, H.,CAROIT, M., CHAOUAT, Y., RENIER, J.C., Leucémies aigues après traite­ment par agents cyto­tox­iques en rhu­ma­tolo­gie. 19 obser­va­tions chez 2006 patients, Nouv. Presse Méd., 14 Apr. 1979; 8 (17): 1393–1397; PENN, I., Leukaemias and lym­phomas asso­ci­ated with the use of cyto­toxic and immuno­sup­pres­sive drugs, Can­cer Res., 1979; 69: 7–13; JOUET, J.P.,HUART, J.J., BAUTERS, F.,GOUDEMAND, M., Leucémies aigues com­pli­cant la mal­adie de Hodgkin. Cinq nou­velles obser­va­tions, Nouv. Presse Méd., 17 Feb. 1979; 8 (8): 613–614; DANO, K., FORCHHAMMER, J., Car­cino­gen­e­sis and drugs (Dan­ish), Ugeskr. Laeger., Aug. 1981; 143 (35): 2246–2247; FARBER, E., Chem­i­cal car­cino­gen­e­sis, N. Engl. J. Med., 3 Dec. 1981; 305 (23): 1379–1389; STEWART, A.L., WILKINSON, P.M., Rapid onset of acute myeloid leukaemia fol­low­ing radio­ther­apy and chemother­apy for metasta­tic semi­noma of the testis, J. Can­cer Res. Clin. Oncol., 1981; 100 (1): 109–111; HOOVER, R., FRAUMENI, J.F., Jr., Drug-induced can­cer, Can­cer, 1 Mar. 1981; 47 (5 Suppl.): 1071–1080; BLANC, A.P., GASTAUT, J.A.,SEBAHOUN, G., DALIVOUST, P., MURISASCO, A., CARCASSONNE, Y., Nais­sance d’une leucémie aigue au décours d’un traite­ment immuno­sup­présseur par le chlo­ram­bu­cil. Une obser­va­tion, Nouv. Presse Méd., May 1981; 10 (21): 1717–1719; CORDIER, J.F., TOURAINE, R., Can­cers épider­moides du poumon chez un patient traité pour can­cer aplasique à petites cel­lules. La chimio­thérapie favorise-t-elle le développe­ment de can­cers d’un autre type his­tologique?, Nouv. Presse Méd., 9 May 1981; 10 (21): 1713–1716; ASBORNSEN, G., GODAL, H.C., MYHRE, K., Acute myel­oge­nous leukaemia after cyto­sta­tic ther­apy in breast can­cer (Nor­we­gian), Tidsskr. Nor. Laege­foren, Feb. 1981; 101 (6): 387–388; PENN, I. Immuno­sup­pres­sion and skin can­cer, Clin. Plast. Surg., Jul. 1980, 7 (3): 361–368;CHAN, K.W., MILLER, D.R., TAN, C.T., Osteosar­coma and acute myeloblas­tic leukaemia after ther­apy for child­hood Hodgkin’s dis­ease — a case report, Med. Pedi­atr. Oncol., 1980; 8 (2): 143–149; MAHOMED, Y., MANDEL, M.A., CRAMER, S.F., MICHEL, B., Squa­mous cell car­ci­noma aris­ing in pem­phi­gus vul­garis dur­ing immuno­sup­pres­sive ther­apy, Can­cer, 15 Sept. 1980; 46 (6): 1374–1377; DOHY, H., GENOT, J.Y., IMBERT, M., D’AGAY, M.F., SULTAN, C., Myelodys­pla­sia and leukaemia related to chemother­apy and/or radio­ther­apy: a haema­to­log­i­cal study of 13 cases. Value of macro­cy­to­sis as an early sign of bone mar­row injury, Clin. Lab. Haema­tol., 1980, 2 (2): 111–119.

10. IMPAIRMENT OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM: SHERKOW, L.H., Chemother­a­peu­tic neu­ro­tox­i­c­ity on brain scintig­ra­phy, Clin. Nucl. Med., Oct. 1979; 4 (10): 439–440.

11. CARDIOTOXICITY: KAYE, S.B., IKRAM, H., Acute car­diac pain and elec­tro­car­dio­graphic changes fol­low­ing cyto­toxic treat­ment for metasta­tic car­ci­noma, Clin. Oncol., Sept. 1976; 2 (3): 215–218; WEINSTEIN, P., GREENWALD, E.S.,GROSSMAN, J., Unusual car­diac reac­tion to chemother­apy fol­low­ing medi­asti­nal irra­di­a­tion in a patient with Hodgkin’s dis­ease, Am. J. Med., Jan. 1976; 60 (1): 152–156; APPELBAUM, F., STRAUCHEN, J.A., GRAW, R.G. Jr., SAVAGE, D.D.,KENT, K.M., FERRANS, V.J., HERZIG, G.P., Acute lethal cardi­tis caused by high-dose com­bi­na­tion chemother­apy. A unique clin­i­cal and patho­log­i­cal entity, Lancet, 10 Jan. 1976; 1 (7950): 58–62; GHIONE, M., Effetti tossici dei far­maci anti­tu­morali sul sis­tema car­dio­vas­co­lare, Recent Prog. Med. (Roma), Oct. 1977; 63 (4): 382–410; SZABO, G., KOVACS, A., Intra-arterial chemother­apy of head and neck tumours, Acta Chir. Acad. Sci. Hung., 1979; 20 (1): 49–55;GARIMOLDI, M., PIAZZA, E., BERTELLO, C., RUGGERI, P.R., LIBRETTI, A., Effetto della chemioter­apia antiblas­tica su alcuni para­metri car­di­o­log­ice, Boll. Soc. Ital. Car­diol., 1978; 23 (10): 1785–1790.

12. MISCELLANEA: Hansen SW; Helweg-Larsen S; Tro­jaborg W, Long-term neu­ro­tox­i­c­ity in patients treated with cis­platin, vin­blas­tine, and bleomycin for metasta­tic germ cell can­cer, J Clin Oncol (UNITED STATES) Oct 1989 7 (10) p1457-61;Eifel PJ; McClure S , Severe chemotherapy-induced recall of radi­a­tion mucosi­tis in a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lym­phoma of Waldeyer’s ring [let­ter], Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Oct 1989 17 (4) p907-8; Tsat­soulis A; Shalet SM; Robert­son WR; Mor­ris ID; Burger HG; De Kretser DM, Plasma inhibin lev­els in men with chemotherapy-induced severe dam­age to the sem­i­nif­er­ous epithe­lium., Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) (ENGLAND) Dec 1988 29 (6) p659-65; Ocu­lar com­pli­ca­tions after intrac­arotid BCNU for intracra­nial tumors, Acta Oph­thal­mol (Copenh) Feb 1989 67 (1) p83-6; Gerasi­mova MM; Bogoslovskaia IA; Kar­charovaSV; Litovskaia AV, Pro­fes­sional dis­eases caused by the action of antibi­otics, Vrach Delo (USSR) May 1989 (5) p109-12; Cartei G; Ceschia T; Mar­silio P; Cloc­chi­atti L; Fasola G; Moran­dini G; Gal­letti D; Sibau A, Effec­tive­ness and tox­i­c­ity of “BELD” poly­chemother­apy in advanced malig­nant melanoma, Tumori (ITALY) Jun 30 1989 75 (3) p229-32; Mansi ML , Clear cell renal car­ci­noma in a preg­nant DES-exposed patient, J Am Osteopath Assoc (UNITED STATES) Jul 1989 89 (7) p929-32; Williams F, Diethyl­stil­boe­strol expo­sure and tes­tic­u­lar can­cer [let­ter], Int J Epi­demiol (ENGLAND) Jun 1989 18 (2) p462-3 ISSN: 0300–5771 Lan­guage:ENGLISH; Bres­sol­lette L; Swirsky H; Ker­naleguen D; Carl­hant D; Fau­quert P; Le Bot MA; Bac­cino E; Riche C, Hepati­tis dur­ing treat­ment with tamox­ifen. Effects on the kinet­ics of epiru­bicin (let­ter), Ther­a­pie (FRANCE) Mar-Apr 1989 44 (2) p151-2 ; Meneghello A; Pre­sacco D; Di Mag­gio C, Asep­tic osteonecro­sis of the femoral head in can­cer patients with neu­ropathies caused by vin­cristine and vin­blas­tine] Com­p­lesso Clin­ico Ospedaliero, Padova. Radiol Med (Torino) (ITALY) Jun 1989 77 (6) p626-30; Grasela TH Jr; Walawan­der CA; Welage LS; Wing PE; Scara­foni DJ; Cald­well JW; Noguchi JK; Schen­tag JJ , Prospec­tive sur­veil­lance of antibiotic-associated coag­u­lopa­thy in 970 patients, Phar­ma­cother­apy 1989 9 (3) p258-64; Rubin B; Pales­tine AG, Com­pli­ca­tions of cor­ti­cos­teroid and immuno­sup­pres­sive drugs, Int Oph­thal­mol Clin (UNITED STATES) Fall 1989 29 (3) p159-71 ; Peif­fert D; Bey P; Led­er­lin P; Con­roy T; Witz F , Imme­di­ate hema­to­log­i­cal tox­i­c­ity dur­ing com­bi­na­tion chemother­apy– radio­ther­apy of Hodgkin’s dis­ease, Bull Can­cer (Paris) 1989 76 (4) p373-82; Szende B; Schally AV; Srkalovic G; Comaru-Schally AM; Wit­tliff JL , Adverse effect of tamox­ifen with LHRH ago­nist on oestrogen-receptor-negative mam­mary car­ci­noma [let­ter] , Lancet (ENGLAND) Jul 22 1989 2 (8656) p222-3; Mat­suura T; Nakabayashi H; Yanag­i­sawa T; Yamazaki K; Watan­abe R; Kameda H; Sakata A , Pri­mary malig­nant lym­phoma of the brain fol­low­ing immuno­sup­pres­sive ther­apy of sys­temic lupus ery­the­mato­sus, Nip­pon Naika Gakkai Zasshi (JAPAN) May 1987 76 (5) p730-5 ; Met­zler M , Metab­o­lism of some ana­bolic agents: tox­i­co­log­i­cal and ana­lyt­i­cal aspects, J Chro­matogr (NETHERLANDS) Apr 7 1989 489 (1) p11-21; Hir­vo­nenHE; Salmi TT; Heinonen E; Antila KJ; Val­i­maki IA , Vin­cristine treat­ment of acute lym­phoblas­tic leukaemia induces tran­sient auto­nomic car­dioneu­ropa­thy, Can­cer Aug 15 1989 64 (4) p801-5; Wilkin­son H , Dan­gers from methyl­pred­nisolone acetate ther­apy by intraspinal injec­tion [let­ter], Arch Neu­rol (UNITEDSTATES) Jul 1989 46 (7) p721-2; Hillbertz-Nilsson K; Fors­berg JG , Geno­toxic effects of estro­gens in epithe­lial cells from the neona­tal mouse uter­ine cervix: mod­i­fi­ca­tions by meta­bolic mod­i­fiers, Ter­ato­ge­n­e­sis Car­cinog Muta­gen (UNITEDSTATES) 1989 9 (2) p97-110; Gen­dron Y; Bron­stein JA; Gras C; Boz P, Neu­ro­mus­cu­lar tox­i­c­ity of colchicine. A case (let­ter)], Presse Med Jun 24 1989 18 (25) p1256; Hansen SW; Olsen N , Raynaud’s phe­nom­e­non in patients treated with cis­platin, vin­blas­tine, and bleomycin for germ cell can­cer: mea­sure­ment of vaso­con­stric­tor response to cold, J Clin Oncol (UNITED STATES) Jul 1989 7 (7) p940-2; Boudouris O; Fer­rand S; Guil­let JL; Made­le­nat P , Para­dox­i­cal effects of tamox­ifen on the woman’s uterus, J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) (FRANCE) 1989 18 (3) p372-8; Fil­las­tre JP, Drug nephro­tox­i­c­ity: mech­a­nisms of action] Nephro­tox­i­cite medica­menteuse: mecan­ismes d’action, Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 1989 47 (2) p91-7; Worts­man J; Hami­dinia A; Win­ters SJ, Hypog­o­nadism fol­low­ing long-term treat­ment with diethyl­stilbe­strol, Am J Med Sci (UNITED STATES) Jun 1989 297 (6) p365-8; Mironova IN; Batov SV; Aldyl­baev TA, Men­tal dis­or­ders dur­ing chemother­apy of malig­nant tes­tic­u­lar neo­plasms, Zh Nevropa­tol Psikhi­atr (USSR) 1989 89 (2) p87-90; Wingard DL; Turiel J , Long-term effects of expo­sure to diethyl­stilbe­strol, West J Med (UNITED STATES) Nov 1988 149 (5) p551-4; N.N., Oph­thal­mo­logic com­pli­ca­tions of low-dose tamox­ifen in the treat­ment of breast car­ci­noma (let­ter), Ned Tijd­schr Geneeskd (NETHERLANDS) Apr 29 1989 133 (17) p903-4 ; Wiest PM; Flani­gan T; Salata RA; Shlaes DM; Katz­man M; Led­er­man MM , Seri­ous infec­tious com­pli­ca­tions of cor­ti­cos­teroid ther­apy for COPD, Chest (UNITED STATES) Jun 1989 95 (6) p1180-4 ; Vyborov AM; Roma­nenko GF, Kaposi’s sar­coma in a female patient tak­ing cor­ti­cos­teroids for a long time, Vestn Der­ma­tol Ven­erol (USSR) 1989 (1) p48-9 ; Fujii H; Yashige H; Maekawa T; Hori­ike S, Acute myeloid leukemia six years after chemother­apy of Hodgkin’s dis­ease] , Rin­sho Ket­sueki (JAPAN) Dec 1988 29 (12) p2369-74; Beyer BK; Green­away JC; Fan­tel AG; Juchau MR , Embry­otox­i­c­ity induced by diethyl­stilbe­strol in vitro, J Biochem Tox­i­col Sum­mer 1987 2 p77-92 ; Love RR , Tamox­ifen ther­apy in pri­mary breast can­cer: biol­ogy, effi­cacy, and side effects, J Clin Oncol (UNITEDSTATES) Jun 1989 7 (6) p803-15 ; von Muh­len­dahl KE; Bram­swig J; Traupe H; Hap­ple R, Acne ful­mi­nans fol­low­ing high-dose testos­terone treat­ment in tall boys, Dtsch Med Wochen­schr (GERMANY, WEST) May 5 1989 114 (18) p712-4 ; Lagler U; Gat­tiker HH , Acute dys­p­nea fol­low­ing intra­venous admin­is­tra­tion of vinblastine/mitomycin C, Schweiz Med Wochen­schr (SWITZERLAND) Mar 4 1989 119 (9) p290-2 ; de Jong-Busnac M , Oph­thal­mo­logic com­pli­ca­tions of low-dosage tamox­ifen in the treat­ment of breast car­ci­noma, Ned Tijd­schr Geneeskd (NETHERLANDS) Mar 11 1989 133 (10) p514-6 Peter­son GM; McGinty JF, Direct neu­ro­toxic effects of colchicine on cholin­er­gic neu­rons in medial sep­tum and stria­tum, Neu­rosci Lett Nov 22 1988 94 (1–2) p46-51; Luciani I , Fatal i.v. colchicine injec­tion in a 60-year-old woman, JEN Mar-Apr 1989 15 (2( Pt 1)) p80-2; Zeymer U; Neuhaus KL , Infarct-typical changes in the elec­tro­car­dio­gram fol­low­ing chemother­apy with vin­blas­tine, Dtsch Med Wochen­schr (GERMANY,WEST) Apr 14 1989 114 (15) p589-92 ; Lamar­tiniere CA; Pardo GA , Altered activation/detoxication enzy­mol­ogy fol­low­ing neona­tal diethyl­stilbe­strol treat­ment., J Biochem Tox­i­col Sum­mer 1988 3 p87-103; Sax­ena AK; Nigam PK, Pan­ni­culi­tis fol­low­ing steroid ther­apy, Cutis Oct 1988 42 (4) p341-2; Ochs J; Mul­h­ernRK , Late effects of antileukemic treat­ment, Pedi­atr Clin North Am Aug 1988 35 (4) p815-33 ; LeBaron S; Zeltzer LK; LeBaron C; Scott SE; Zeltzer PM , Chemother­apy side-effects in pedi­atric oncol­ogy patients: drugs, age, and sex as risk fac­tors, Med Pedi­atr Oncol 1988 16 (4) p263-8 ; Satou M; Koshikawa S , Drug-induced glomeru­lonephri­tis, Nip­pon Rin­sho (JAPAN) Jun 1988 46 (6) p1413-8 ; Gonadal activ­ity and chemotherapy-induced gonadal dam­age [let­ter],JAMA (UNITED STATES) Oct 14 1988 260 (14) p2064-6; Gradishar WJ; SchilskyRL , Effects of can­cer treat­ment on the repro­duc­tive sys­tem, CRC Crit Rev Oncol Hema­tol (UNITED STATES) 1988 8 (2) p153-71; Brok KE; Elberg JJ , Ter­ato­genic effect of thiotepa despite obser­va­tion of safety reg­u­la­tions, Ugeskr Laeger (DENMARK) Aug 1 1988 150 (31) p1898-9; Brinch L; Evensen SA; Stavem P; Svare A, Neu­ro­log­i­cal prob­lems in leukemia, Tidsskr Nor Laege­foren (NORWAY) Aug 10 1988 108 (22) p1587-9; Ries F, Nephro­tox­i­c­ity of chemother­apy, Eur J Can­cer Clin Oncol (ENGLAND) Jun 1988 24 (6) p951-3 ; Drings P , Late car­dio res­pi­ra­tory seque­lae fol­low­ing chemo– and radio­ther­apy, Med Klin (GERMANY,WEST) May 27 1988 83 (12) p408-16; Smith MA; Shah NR; Lobel JS; Cera PJ; Gary GW; Ander­son LJ, Severe anaemia caused by human par­vovirus in a leukaemia patient on main­te­nance chemother­apy, Clin Pedi­atr (Phila) Aug 1988 27 (8) p383-6; Kusumoto M; Nagata M; Seguchi U , Nurs­ing of a leukaemic patient with severe nau­sea and vom­it­ing caused by chemother­apy, Kango Gijutsu (JAPAN) Jun 1988 34 (8) p926-30; Book­man MA; Longo DL; Young RC , Late com­pli­ca­tions of cura­tive treat­ment in Hodgkin’s dis­ease [clin­i­cal con­fer­ence, JAMA (UNITED STATES) Aug 5 1988 260 (5) p680-3; Scrobo­haci ML; Drouet L; Baudin B , Hemo­sta­sis tests as mark­ers of hepatic and endothe­lial tox­i­c­ity in chemother­apy, Nouv Rev Fr Hema­tol (GERMANY, WEST) 1988 30 (1–2) p109-14; Kaldor JM; Day NE; Hem­minki K, Quan­ti­fy­ing the car­cino­genic­ity of anti neo­plas­tic drugs, Eur J Can­cer Clin Oncol Apr 1988 24 (4) p703-11; Frick SB; Guzzi DelPo E; Keith JA; Davis MS, Chemotherapy-associated nau­sea and vom­it­ing in pedi­atric oncol­ogy patients, Can­cer Nurs Apr 1988 11 (2) p118-24; Mad­sen ES; Larsen H , Excre­tion of muta­gens in sweat from humans treated with anti-neoplastic drugs, Can­cer Lett (IRELAND) Jun 15 1988 40 (2) p199-202 ; Colls BM , Cyto­toxic chemother­apy: a poten­tial haz­ard to patients and hos­pi­tal per­son­nel?, N Z Med J Mar 11 1987 100 (819) p149-50; Shaw PJ; Nightin­galeWE; Bergin ME; Stevens MM, Use of sil­ver sul­pha­di­azine cream for burns caused by cytotoxic-drug extrava­sa­tion [let­ter], Med J Aust (AUSTRALIA) Jun 20 1988 148 (12) p657; Ina­matsu T , Colonic dis­eases due to var­i­ous ther­a­peu­tic agents, Nip­pon Rin­sho (JAPAN) Feb 1988 46 (2) p451-6 ; Kamata H; Murakami A; Miya­gawa N; Yasui H; Nagano H; Abe S; Ueda K; Kisida S , A case of leukoen­cephalopa­thy caused by HCFU, Gan No Rin­sho May 1988 34 (6) p783-6 ; TsaiLT; Chang TT; Hwang KP; Chen TS, Clin­i­cal study of inter­sti­tial pneu­mo­nia in acute lym­phoblas­tic leukaemia chil­dren under anti-cancer ther­apy, Kao Hsi­ung I Hsueh Ko Hsueh Tsa Chih Dec 1985 1 (12) p754-60; Kra­sowska I; Urban M , Non-hematological side-effects of cyto­sta­tic drugs used in chil­dren, Pedi­atr Pol (POLAND) Nov-Dec 1987 62 (11–12) p787-92 ; Kar­dos G; Gacs G; Solyom J; Revesz T; Kaj­tar P; Koos R; Schuler R , Changes in gonadal func­tion after treat­ment of malig­nant dis­eases in chil­dren, Orv Hetil Mar 27 1988 129 (13) p657-8, 661–2 ; Andrykowski MA , Defin­ing antic­i­pa­tory nau­sea and vom­it­ing: dif­fer­ences among can­cer chemother­apy patients who report pre­treat­ment nau­sea, J Behav Med (UNITED STATES) Feb 1988 11 (1) p59-69; Umbach GE , Car­ci­noma of the cervix: chemother­apy, tox­i­c­ity, and sur­vival [let­ter], J Clin Oncol (UNITEDSTATES) May 1988 6 (5) p926-7; Prop­ert KJ; Ander­son JR, Assess­ing the effect of tox­i­c­ity on prog­no­sis: meth­ods of analy­sis and inter­pre­ta­tion, J Clin Oncol (UNITED STATES) May 1988 6 (5) p868-70; Nasu H; Inoue Y; Naka­mura J; Iizuka M; Arakawa H; Masamune O , A case of gas­tric can­cer asso­ci­ated with hyper­kalemia dur­ing the effec­tive chemother­apy, Nip­pon Gan Chiryo Gakkai Shi (JAPAN) Dec 20 1987 22 (10) p2347-51; van der Does-van den Berg A; Hahlen K; de Vaan GA; Veer­man AJ, Late seque­lae of the treat­ment of chil­dren with acute lym­phatic leukaemia, Ned Tijd­schr Geneeskd Mar 26 1988 132 (13) p568-71; Mead­ows AT , Risk fac­tors for sec­ond malig­nant neo­plasms: report from the Late Effects Study Group, Bull Can­cer (Paris) 1988 75 (1) p125-30; Hantel A; Rowin­sky EK; Done­hower RC , Nifedip­ine and onco­logic Ray­naud phe­nom­e­non [let­ter], Ann Intern Med (UNITED STATES) May 1988 108 (5) p767; Hoshino K; Mizushima Y; Yano S; Kita­gawa M , An autop­sied case of pul­monary car­ci­noma with per­fo­ra­tion peri­toni­tis due to metasta­tic tumor necro­sis at the jejunum caused by chemother­apy, Gan No Rin­sho Apr 1988 34 (4) p491-6; Rado J, Elec­trolyte dis­or­ders caused by drugs, Orv Hetil (HUNGARY) Jan 3 1988 129 (1) p25-31; Henry-Amar M , Quan­ti­ta­tive risk of sec­ond can­cer in patients in first com­plete remis­sion from early stages of Hodgkin’s dis­ease, NCI Monogr (UNITED STATES) 1988 (6) p65-72; Mul­der PO; Slei­jfer DT; de Vries EG; UgesDR; Mul­der NH, Renal dys­func­tion fol­low­ing high-dose car­bo­platin treat­ment, J Can­cer Res Clin Oncol (GERMANY, WEST) 1988 114 (2) p212-4; Mar­tinez CL; Ciavaglia SJ; Costello PB , Adverse effects of phar­ma­co­logic agents used in the treat­ment of rheumatic dis­eases, Ear Nose Throat J (UNITED STATES) Nov 1987 66 (11) p463-6 ; Bal­ducci L; Phillips DM; Gearhart JG; Lit­tle DD; Bowie C; McGe­hee RP , Sex­ual com­pli­ca­tions of can­cer treat­ment, Am Fam Physi­cian (UNITEDSTATES) Mar 1988 37 (3) p159-72 ; Mag­ne­nat JL; Junod AF, Pul­monary tox­i­c­ity of drugs, Ther Umsch (SWITZERLAND) Dec 1987 44 (12) p949-54; Ciambel­lotti E; Car­tia GL; Coda C, Scintig­ra­phy of the bone mar­row for the eval­u­a­tion of injuries caused by antiblas­tic agents, Radiol Med (Torino) (ITALY) Jan-Feb 1988 75 (1–2) p78-82 ; Najean Y , The iatro­genic leukaemias induced by radio– and/or chemother­apy, Med Oncol Tumor Phar­ma­cother (ENGLAND) 1987 4 (3–4) p245-57 ; Fraser MC; Tucker MA, Late effects of can­cer ther­apy: chemotherapy-related malig­nan­cies, Oncol Nurs Forum (UNITED STATES) Jan-Feb 1988 15 (1) p67-77; Fil­las­tre JP; Viotte G; Morin JP; Moulin B, Nephro­tox­i­c­ity of anti­tu­moral agents, Adv Nephrol (UNITED STATES) 1988 17 p175-218 ; DavisHP; New­lands ES; Allain T; Hegde U , Immune throm­bo­cy­tope­nia caused by flavone-8-acetic acid [let­ter], Lancet Feb 20 1988 1 (8582) p412; Zetter­berg G; Bjork­holm M; Eklund AE; Farnebo LO, Acute abdom­i­nal symp­toms in patients with granulocytopenia–a clin­i­cal dilemma, Lakar­tid­nin­gen (SWEDEN) Dec 9 1987 84 (50) p4248-9; Ono J; Nohara T; Nakase A, Effects of anti­cancer drugs on hepatic fibro­sis in the rats with car­bon tetrachloride-induced hepatic injury, Nip­pon Gan Chiryo Gakkai Shi (JAPAN) Jul 20 1987 22 (6) p1240-9; Tal­bot GH; Provencher M; Cas­sileth PA, Per­sis­tent fever after recov­ery from gran­u­lo­cy­tope­nia in acute leukemia, Arch Intern Med Jan 1988 148 (1) p129-35; Rubin RH , Empiric antibac­te­r­ial ther­apy in gran­u­lo­cy­tope­nia induced by can­cer chemother­apy, Ann Intern Med (UNITED STATES) Jan 1988 108 (1) p134-6; Ivlev AS; Pol­un­ina TE, Drug-induced hepati­tis dur­ing the hor­monal treat­ment of patients with pro­sta­tic tumours, Urol Nefrol (Mosk) (USSR) Sep-Oct 1987 (5) p65-6; Kan­tar­jian HM; Keat­ing MJ, Therapy-related leukemia and myelodys­plas­tic syn­drome, Semin Oncol (UNITED STATES) Dec 1987 14 (4) p435-43; Tucker MA; Cole­man CN; Cox RS; Vargh­ese A; Rosen­berg SA , Risk of sec­ond can­cers after treat­ment for Hodgkin’s dis­ease, N Engl J Med (UNITED STATES) Jan 14 1988 318 (2) p76-81;D’ARCY, P.F., Iatro­genic didease: a haz­ard of mul­ti­ple drug ther­apy, R. Soc. Health J., Dec. 1976; 96 (6): 277–283; SEVEROVA, E.I., Main results and trends in the study of side-effects of drugs (Russ­ian), Soc. Med., Apr. 1976; (4): 7–15; D’ANGIO, G.J., Cure has its tomor­rows, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., Jan. — Feb. 1976; 1 (3–4): 373–374; ALMICI, C., CORDONI, A., D’ADDA, P., INZOLI, M.R., LAZZARONI, G., ZAMBRUNI, A., Le malat­tie sec­on­darie indotte dalla chemio­ther­a­pia cito­sta­t­ica, G. Clin. Med., Mar. — Apr. 1976; 56 (2): 131–143; KORDECKI, H., URASINKI, I., Side-effects of poly­chemother­apy in patients with acute leukaemia (Pol­ish), Pol. Tyg. Lek., 7 Jun. 1976; 31 (23): 973–975; SCHEIN, P.S., WINOKUR, S.H., Immuno­sup­pres­sive and cyto­toxic chemother­apy: long-term com­pli­ca­tions, Ann. Intern. Med., Jan. 1976; 82 (1): 84–95; MIHICH E., Immuno­sup­pres­sion in can­cer ther­a­peu­tics, in MURPHY, G.P. (Ed.), Can­cer and trans­plan­ta­tion, N.Y., Grune & Strattn, 1975, p. 137–140;KLATERSKY, J., Les com­pli­ca­tions médi­cales de la chimio­thérapie, Acta Clin. Belg., 1975; 30 (6): 538–546; GÜRTLER, R., The risk of adju­vant chemother­apy, Arch. Geschwul­st­forsch., 1978; 48 (7): 644–652; PETRANYI, G. Haz­ards of cyto­toxic ther­apy (Hun­gar­ian), Orv. Hetil., 8 Jan. 1978; 119 (2): 63–69; GEIB, K.R.,PAPAZIAN, R., Ther­a­peu­tic progress and iatro­genic prob­lems in malig­nant hemopathies (Ruman­ian), Rev. Med. Intern., Jul. — Aug. 1977; 29 (4): 343–349;CREAVEN, P.J., MIHICH, E., The clin­i­cal tox­i­c­ity of anti­cancer drugs and its pre­dic­tion, Semin. Oncol., Jun. 1977; 4 (2): 147–163; GUTJAHR, P., JUNG, H., Spät­fol­gen der Tumor­be­hand­lung im Kinde­salter, Laryn­gol. Rhi­nol. Otol. (Stuttgart), Jun. 1977; 147–163; SCHÖNFELDER, M., Kom­p­lika­tio­nen nach Chemother­a­pie solider maligner men­schlicher Tumoren und deren Ther­a­pie, Zen­tralbl. Chir., 1979; 104 (17): 1103–1110; DEMIN, A.A., SMIRNOV, V.V., Chemother­apy of lym­phogran­u­lo­mato­sis (Russ­ian), Sov. Med., Aug. 1979; (8): 86–90; SPIEGEL, R.J., MAGRATH, I.T., Tumor lysis pan­cre­ati­tis, Med. Pedi­atr. Oncol., 1979; 7 (2): 169–172; METTLER, F.A. Jr., Man­i­fes­ta­tion of drug tox­i­c­ity, Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol., Jul. — Aug. 1979; 8 (4): 1–55; TULLY, J.L., LEW, M.A., CONNOR, M., D’ORSI, C.J., Clostridial sep­sis fol­low­ing hepatic arte­r­ial infu­sion chemother­apy, Am. J. Med., Oct. 1979; 67 (4): 707–710; THOMSON, L., Can­cer chemother­apy: a guide for nurses. Side-effects of chemother­apy, Nurs. Times, 19 Jul. 1979; 75 (29): Suppl. 5–8; HARRINGTON, W.J., Iatro­genic dis­or­ders from can­cer treat­ment, Adv. Intern. Med., 1979; 24: 141–155; NINANE, J., Seri­ous infec­tions dur­ing con­tin­u­ing treat­ment of acute lym­phoblas­tic leukemia, Arch. Dis. Child., Nov. 1981; 56 (11): 841–844; DODD, M.J., DODD, D.W., Chemother­apy: help­ing patients to know the drugs they are receiv­ing and their pos­si­ble side-effects, Can­cer Nurs., Aug. 1981; 4 (4): 311–318; GLASS, A., WIESAND, H.S., FISCHER, B., REDMOND, C., LERNER, H., WOLTER, J., SHIBATA, H., PLOTKIN, D., FOSTER, R.,MARGOLESE, R., WOLMARK, N., Acute tox­i­c­ity dur­ing adju­vant chemother­apy for breast can­cer: The National Sur­gi­cal Adju­vant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), expe­ri­ence from 1717 patients receiv­ing sin­gle and mul­ti­ple agents, Can­cer Treat. Rep., May — Jun. 1981; 65 (5–6): 363–376; ZAJICEK, G., The risk of chemother­apy, Med. Hypothe­ses, Mar. 1981; 7 (3): 363–372; RHOMBERG, W., Prob­leme der kumu­la­tiven Tox­iz­ität von Radio­ther­a­pie und zyto­sta­tis­cher Chemother­a­pie beim Bronchialka­rzi­nom, Onkolo­gie, Jun. 1980; 3 (3): 97–101;LEVITT, D.Z., Can­cer chemother­apy: those dreaded side-effects and what to do about them, R.N., Aug. 1980; 43 (8): 51–54, 55–60; GHIONE, M., Effetti col­lat­er­ali della chemioter­apia anti­tu­morale, Min­erva Med., 14 Apr. 1980; 71 (15): 1095–1099; KAPADIA, S.B., KRAUSE, J.R., ELLIS, L.D., PAN, S.F., WALD, N., Induced non-lymphocytic leukaemia fol­low­ing long-term chemother­apy: a study of 20 cases, Can­cer, 15 Mar. 1980; 45 (6): 1315–1321; MARKOE, A.M., The effects of com­bined radi­a­tion and chemother­apy on the immune response, Prog. Exp. Tumor Res., 25: 219–228.

by Steven Ransom

In sum­mon­ing even the wis­est of physi­cians to our aid,
it is prob­a­ble that he is rely­ing upon a sci­en­tific ‘truth’,
the error of which will become obvi­ous in just a few years’ time.”

Mar­cel Proust

20% rate of mis­di­ag­no­sis by doc­tors - One out of every five patients who died in the med­ical inten­sive care unit at one of the nation’s best hos­pi­tals were mis­di­ag­nosed by their doc­tors — a rate that mir­rors the rates found in ICU’s [inten­sive care units] nation­wide, new research shows. Researchers assert in a report in the jour­nal Chest that half of the mis­di­ag­nosed patients should have been treated dif­fer­ently, though it’s hard to know whether that could have saved any lives. 1

Hear­ing those dreaded words, “You have can­cer”, and then sub­mit­ting to the ortho­dox regime can be a dev­as­tat­ing enough expe­ri­ence in itself. But what if you went through this expe­ri­ence only to dis­cover that it was all com­pletely unnecessary?

You have can­cer. Oh, hang on a minute…While the above story from USA Today applies to mis­di­ag­no­sis of dis­ease in gen­eral, an Inter­net search on ‘can­cer mis­di­ag­no­sis’ reveals a very high num­ber of lawyers adver­tis­ing their ser­vices. The level of lawyer inter­est in any given liti­gious angle is usu­ally a good indi­ca­tor of that angle’s abil­ity to pay off. In the case of can­cer, lawyers have gath­ered thick and fast around what has been found to be a lucra­tive and sta­ble source of income. It seems the sci­ence of can­cer diag­no­sis is by no means exact.

Smart­light Mam­mo­graph­ics is a major man­u­fac­turer of radi­og­ra­phy and mam­mog­ra­phy equip­ment. The organ­i­sa­tion admits that radi­ographic test­ing pro­ce­dures are inac­cu­rate. Amaz­ingly, this organ­i­sa­tion has posted links that prof­fer the fol­low­ing infor­ma­tion: We expected error rates to be around 30%, but the wide range of results (10%-90%) was an eye-opener.” and: Radi­ol­o­gists can dif­fer sub­stan­tially in their mam­mo­graphic rec­om­men­da­tions.”2

There are unfor­tu­nately a great num­ber of exam­ples where mis­di­ag­no­sis has occurred in a vari­ety of ways, with pre­dictably dis­as­trous consequences.

Valerie Sahar was for­tu­nate. She was told by her doc­tor that a biopsy had shown she had breast can­cer. It was decided to have the breast removed as well as a por­tion of her under­arm tis­sue, to be fol­lowed by radi­a­tion and chemother­apy. She headed for the exam­in­ing room so the doc­tor could check her other breast. Ten min­utes later her doc­tor said she didn’t have can­cer at all and that her test results had been mixed up with those of another patient. What if this mix-up had not been noticed? The woman would have lost one breast — pos­si­bly two — and would have been sub­jected to radi­a­tion and chemother­apy. If she had sur­vived the treat­ment, she would then have been told she was cured.3

Nancy Seeger, aged 56, was not so for­tu­nate. She was only 14 years old when her mother died of breast can­cer. Within five years, her mother’s sis­ter was dead of the same dis­ease. Then, researchers devel­oped a DNA test for the gene defect that sup­pos­edly pre­dis­poses a woman to both breast and ovar­ian can­cer. Seeger opted for this test. When the results came back, the doc­tor solemnly handed her a let­ter which included the words “a life­time risk of breast can­cer as high as 85 per­cent… risk for ovar­ian can­cer 50 per­cent over one’s life­time.” The results, said the let­ter, had been con­firmed independently.

No ovaries, but a refundEven though she was healthy, Seeger opted for surgery to remove her ovaries. She was on the mend and already con­sid­er­ing the removal of both her breaststoo when she received yet another call from her doc­tor that she did not have the muta­tion after all. A sec­ond set of sci­en­tists had detected the error after she had donated a blood sam­ple for research. The orig­i­nal lab apol­o­gised for any anx­i­ety or stress this sit­u­a­tion may have caused and refunded her $350 fee. But Seeger could not have children.

In Octo­ber 1999, she filed a law­suit against the lab, Oncormed, and the com­pany that later acquired it, Gene Logic. A spokesman for Gene Logic stated the com­pany no longer per­forms that test.4

Dr James ElwoodIn the UK, a report was released con­cern­ing the case of an elderly pathol­o­gist who mis­di­ag­nosed more than 200 can­cer patients. The report was ordered after it emerged that 79-year-old Dr James Elwood, a con­sul­tant pathol­o­gist, had wrongly diag­nosed more than 200 can­cer patients at the Princess Mar­garet Hos­pi­tal in Swin­don. Dr Elwood had worked as a locum pathol­o­gist in three other Trusts — the Royal United Hos­pi­tal Bath Trust, the Mid-Sussex Trust and Frim­ley Park Hos­pi­tals Trust — between 1995 and 1999.

Despite con­cerns being raised about his per­for­mance as early as 1995, inves­ti­ga­tions didn’t start until 1999.

In a state­ment to the press, the Swin­don and Com­mu­nity Health Coun­cil said the report was “a damn­ing indict­ment of a sys­tem that has failed to pro­tect patients from poorly per­form­ing locum con­sul­tants.” 5

Jen­nifer RuferThe story of 22-year-old Jen­nifer Rufer made head­lines across the US. Jen­nifer was treated for a can­cer she never had because of ‘false pos­i­tive’ read­ings from a blood test made by Abbott Labs.6 She was awarded $16 mil­lion in June 2001, due in part to her con­tin­u­ous cam­paign over her ‘diag­no­sis’ of can­cer through blood tests man­u­fac­tured by Abbott Labs. Jen­nifer endured chemother­apy, a hys­terec­tomy and lung surgery as a result of Abbot’s errant pre­dic­tive test.

Abbott Lab­o­ra­to­ries has so far refused to make the papers on these tests pub­lic knowl­edge and declines to acknowl­edge respon­si­bil­ity for this and other cases of can­cer mis­di­ag­no­sis. Abbot Lab­o­ra­to­ries also argues that there are accept­able lev­els of error, and cites doc­tors as the guilty party for not tak­ing these fac­tors into account.

No mat­ter how hard you try to edu­cate doc­tors,” says Abbott attor­ney Brad Keller, “there are still going to be a small hand­ful of them who are not pay­ing atten­tion.” 7

Rufer’s attor­neys say they have as many as 15 more women who may sue Abbott Labs. As a result of her expe­ri­ences, Jen­nifer Rufer is unable to have children.

Back here in the UK:

Cer­vi­cal Can­cer Mis­di­ag­no­sis Shakes UK Pub­lic Con­fi­dence In Screen­ing: British health offi­cials are empha­sis­ing to a wor­ried pub­lic that the num­ber of mis­di­ag­noses in cer­vi­cal smear slides found at Leices­ter Royal Infir­mary is in line with national and inter­na­tional test lev­els. False-negative cer­vi­cal smear slide read­ings led to the deaths of 14 women and unneeded rad­i­cal treat­ment in another 64 women in the county of Leices­ter­shire, a seven-year audit has shown. There is spec­u­la­tion that per­haps one third of British women who now have a diag­no­sis of cer­vi­cal can­cer could have received wrong or mis­lead­ing smear results.8

Prostate, thy­roid and pan­cre­atic cancer:always seek a sec­ond opinion!I was in a UK chain­store recently where leaflets were being dis­trib­uted on prostate can­cer – ‘the silent killer in our midst’. The leaflets con­tained a great deal of scare-mongering sound-bytes, the whole thrust of the mes­sage being that men should go and get them­selves tested for prostate can­cer as soon as pos­si­ble. To the more dis­cern­ing eye, it was imme­di­ately appar­ent that these leaflets con­tained no accu­rate or impor­tant infor­ma­tion whatsoever.

Firstly, there was no men­tion of the gravely inac­cu­rate nature of the prostate can­cer test, which mea­sures lev­els of a pro­tein called prostate-specific anti­gen (PSA). Med­ically qual­i­fied oppo­nents of the PSA test prostate have long been stat­ing that prostate tumours, when they occur, are slow-growing and that most men die with prostate can­cer, not of it. Fur­ther­more, the tests are costly, often inac­cu­rate and emo­tion­ally try­ing for the patient.9

Accord­ing to a study car­ried out at the Fred Hutchin­son Can­cer Research Cen­tre in Seat­tle and pub­lished in The Jour­nal of the National Can­cer Insti­tute, about a third of over-65s screened with the prostate-specific anti­gen blood test are being over­diag­nosed and receiv­ing unnec­es­sary treat­ment. The study also found thePSA test inac­cu­rate due to the fact that the PSA pro­tein in the blood is also found in men with­out can­cer. The level rises as men age, and also when they have a benign prostate enlarge­ment, or var­i­ous infec­tions. The study stated that about 35% of men tested would never expe­ri­ence any symp­toms of the dis­ease.10 One is forced to con­sider how many men are under­go­ing unnec­es­sary treat­ment for prostate can­cer today.

Test­ing, test­ing, 1–2-3:

dying ‘with’ and not ‘of’ cancer.

On the mat­ter of ‘dying with can­cer and not of it’, the fol­low­ing excerpt is taken from a book by Linus Paul­ing and Dr Ewan Cameron enti­tled Can­cer and Vit­a­min C. Linus Paul­ing PhD is con­sid­ered the father of Vit­a­min C research and Ewan Cameron is an oncol­o­gist with some thirty years expe­ri­ence in treat­ing can­cer patients conventionally.

“In many Euro­pean hos­pi­tals, metic­u­lous autop­sies are per­formed with­out regard to cause of death, and these autop­sies reveal a remark­ably high inci­dence of can­cers that were never sus­pected in life. Autopsy can­cer of the prostate increases steadily with increas­ing age until after aged 75 it is found in every sec­ond male, yet only 2% of males die of prostate can­cer.” 11

The authors also noted that in those autop­sies, can­cer of the thy­roid and pan­creas is thirty to forty times as com­mon than is pre­sented in doc­tors’ surg­eries. Thirty to forty times as com­mon! Unbe­known, peo­ple were liv­ing with these can­cers and were not in the least trou­bled by them. Again, we must con­sider the pos­si­bil­ity that it is only when the trust­ing patient sub­mits to the var­i­ous ‘tests’ for these can­cers that trou­ble begins.

Firstly, the inac­cu­rate nature of the test itself, then the fear fac­tor as the diag­no­sis is deliv­ered, and then the toxic drugs, surgery and other harm­ful, com­pletely unnec­es­sarytreat­ments that fol­low diag­no­sis. We cer­tainly live in an age where ‘the test’ rules the day. A rea­son­able sce­nario is where we find our­selves telling the doc­tor we feel per­fectly well, in fact tip-top, and the doc­tor replies, “Non­sense! You just haven’t had the right test yet.” Paul­ing and Cameron go on to state:

“Can­cer is there­fore far more com­mon than we usu­ally realise and is not such a vicious dis­ease as is com­monly thought, except when it gets out of con­trol. The great major­ity of can­cers are held in check by the body; they grow for a while, then regress and dis­ap­pear, and it is only an occa­sional one that escapes from con­trol and forms a pro­gres­sive can­cer.” 12

Part two of Great News on Can­cer looks at the vital role of the immune sys­tem in the fight against can­cer, how cell degen­er­a­tion can occur and how cellREGENERATION can occur by nat­ural means.

Test your­self at home

There are tests avail­able now that allow the patient to screen them­selves for can­cer in the pri­vacy of their own home. Anytestkits.com states on its website:

The inci­dence of prostate can­cer is one of the most wor­ry­ing can­cers for men, yet when diag­nosed and treated in time, can be less inva­sive than when only found at an advanced stage. Although med­ical opin­ion varies when men should start doing this test annu­ally, we would rec­om­mend that all men over 35 should have their prostate checked annu­ally — and with this screen­ing test, all it takes is a prick of your fin­ger, a drop of blood, and you will have an indi­ca­tion if your prostate needs fur­ther med­ical inves­ti­ga­tion. $14.00, all costs included. To order, please go to the bot­tom of the page.”13

I for one will not be adding this par­tic­u­lar test to my shop­ping cart. The dan­ger to us males is that the media-driven prostate scare sto­ries are forc­ing us along to the clin­ics, where we are then given scans that detect often benign abnor­mal­i­ties, and are then fright­ened into destruc­tive con­ven­tional treat­ments, and worse still, com­plete prostate removal - a sur­gi­cal inter­ven­tion that strips us of our sex life. Fur­ther­more, the drugs given to men deemed prostate can­cer pos­i­tive enlarge the breasts and cause other fem­i­ni­sa­tion changes to the body.  

Because testos­terone has been linked to prostate tumour growth rates, estro­gen is given to inhibit testos­terone lev­els and pre­vent the hor­mone from act­ing on the prostate. Zoladex, a com­mon prostate can­cer hor­mone drug, causes weight gain, mus­cle bulk loss, breast enlarge­ment, impo­tence, bone pain and gen­eral nau­sea. In the main, prostate can­cer treat­ment is ‘state med­i­cine gone mad’. As we shall see in later chap­ters, and as per the Paul­ing quote, our bod­ies — if we look after them prop­erly — can and do repel many can­cers wholly unaided by con­ven­tional inter­ven­tion.  

The thy­roid test

In 1997, a med­ical jour­nal dis­arm­ingly announced the following:

Researchers have devel­oped a sim­ple blood test that can iden­tify post­op­er­a­tive thy­roid can­cer patients at risk for metasta­tic dis­ease. The test involves a tech­nique called reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reac­tion (RT-PCR) that allows for iso­la­tion of minute amounts of genetic mate­r­ial (mes­sen­ger RNA)… [blah, blah, blah] the RT-PCRtest is sim­ple, inex­pen­sive, and accu­rate. Fur­ther research on the test is in progress.”14

And yet, in that ‘same old, same old’ vein, a lead­ing thy­roid can­cer voice in theUS, The Amer­i­can Thy­roid Clinic, states that most thy­roid can­cer detec­tion tests are a waste of time and money and con­tribute noth­ing to the diag­no­sis. “We will often see a patient in the office with thou­sands of dol­lars worth of tests that were sim­ply unnec­es­sary.  Prob­a­bly the best test for a thy­roid tumor is the expe­ri­enced fin­gers of a thy­roid sur­geon.”15 

Sheila Roylost her mar­riage and two years of her life as a result of mis­di­ag­no­sis and unwar­ranted med­ical inter­ven­tion. In 1997, she was diag­nosed with pan­cre­atic can­cer and given one year to live. She under­went aggres­sive treat­ment that included surgery, chemother­apy and radi­a­tion. She received 40 days of radi­a­tion and was given high doses of the chemother­apy drug 5FU (some­times referred to by doc­tors as ‘5 feet under’ because of its dele­te­ri­ous effects). Two years after the ini­tial diag­no­sis, it was dis­cov­ered that the pathol­o­gist had made a mis­take in inter­pret­ing test results. Med­ical author­i­ties admit­ted the young woman had never had can­cer. It is now hoped she will not develop sec­ondary can­cer as a result of the radi­a­tion and chemother­apy to which she was need­lessly and care­lessly sub­jected.16

The pan­cre­atic can­cer test

The Amer­i­can Can­cer Soci­ety reports on the lat­est pan­cre­atic can­cer test involv­ing genetic explo­ration of the fam­ily tree. Patients are strongly advised to read the sec­tion on genet­ics and can­cer in this book before sub­mit­ting to such tests.17

Per­son­ally speak­ing, I see the explo­sive growth of tests as out­ward con­firm­na­tion that we are con­tin­u­ing to hand over respon­si­bil­ity for per­sonal health to our modern-day shamens, the med­ical ‘experts’. If the above exam­ples serve any pur­pose, it is to demon­strate that seek­ing a sec­ond opin­ion, out­side of the con­ven­tional can­cer cir­cle, is a wise move. Whilst the remit of this book does not spread to the full cov­er­age of doctor-induced injury and death, it is worth bring­ing to atten­tion the fact that over a mil­lion patients are injured in US hos­pi­tals each year, and approx­i­mately 280,000 die annu­ally as a result of these injuries. This means that the death rate of iatro­ge­n­e­sis (doctor-induced events) dwarfs the annual auto­mo­bile acci­dent mor­tal­ity rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other acci­dents com­bined.18 As John Moe­laert, author of The Can­cer Con­spir­acy, states:

Med­i­cine is not an exact sci­ence like math­e­mat­ics. There is an inor­di­nate degree of guess­work involved in the diag­no­sis and treat­ment of dis­ease, and as a result count­less mis­takes are made, some fatal.”19

And fur­ther on down the line, at the doctor’s surgery, Phillip Bates, the author ofHealth Rev­o­lu­tion, sug­gests the following:

Your doc­tor isn’t an idiot, or even a bad guy – he’s just the vic­tim of his exten­sive and expen­sive edu­ca­tion, and he believes the [Amer­i­can Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion] dogma. He reads med­ical jour­nals to keep up, nat­u­rally. There’s no rea­son for him to dis­be­lieve the arti­cles that appear in his jour­nals about vit­a­min C not being effec­tive. He must rea­son that if any such ther­apy were good, it would be reported in such jour­nals.  The indi­vid­ual doc­tor is prob­a­bly not even aware that the med­ical jour­nals he reads are lit­er­ally con­trolled by the drug adver­tis­ing. Don’t blame your doc­tor for his lack of knowl­edge. Blame the sys­tem.” 20

The nar­row view

Cre­dence is always care­ful to stress that under­go­ing con­ven­tional med­ical train­ing does not auto­mat­i­cally mean sign­ing up to some vast con­spir­acy inten­tion­ally killing peo­ple. But these accu­sa­tions are still lev­elled at us from time to time by cer­tain con­ven­tional med­ical pro­fes­sion­als who should know bet­ter. The fact that qual­i­fied peo­ple actu­ally hold this view is well illus­trated in the fol­low­ing let­ter sent to me by one irate doctor:

I have yet to see a sin­gle shred of evi­dence that sup­ports the con­spir­acy the­o­ries that abound on the web. It doesn’t mat­ter whether it’s can­cer treat­ment, aspar­tame, or even soy­beans. Con­sider this: would any com­pany seek to sell prod­ucts that kill the cus­tomer? It doesn’t make any sense. The sci­en­tist who dis­cov­ered cis­platin was a pro­fes­sor of mine in uni­ver­sity. I knew his mind and his heart. He wanted to find a cure because it had dev­as­tated some­one in his fam­ily. While all chemother­a­pies are poi­sons, by exten­sion of your logic he was cre­at­ing a prod­uct that he knew would kill his fam­ily mem­bers. Does that even make sense to you?”

And fur­ther:

But con­sider this: if even one per­son takes your rec­om­men­da­tions not to use chemother­apy and dies any­way, you’re as guilty of mur­der as Jack the Rip­per. But more than that, you’ll have failed at what you’re prob­a­bly try­ing to do: help peo­ple. Live with that. P.S. I’ve for­got­ten more than you will ever know.” 21

Quite depress­ingly, prior to writ­ing the above let­ter, this doc­tor had already been made aware of the infor­ma­tion in chap­ter 2 on cis­platin — the drug that chemother­apy experts would most want to avoid. Yet because the pro­fes­sor is a col­league of his and is a well-intentioned indi­vid­ual, this some­how makes it all accept­able. Never mind the fact that cis­platin is a cor­ro­sive car­cino­gen. Fur­ther­more, any­one who ques­tions these hon­ourable inten­tions is imme­di­ately labelled a con­spir­acy the­o­rist and per­haps ‘Jack the Rip­per’. (And con­versely, by an exten­sion of the above doctor’s logic, if cis­platin, or chemother­apy in gen­eral, were to kill just one per­son, then the doc­tor advis­ing it would also be guilty of murder.)

In his book, Hid­den Per­suaders,adver­tis­ing and media critic Vance Packard stated that in order for one party sub­tly to gain supe­ri­or­ity over another party, that party must employ cer­tain tac­tics. “…one must pre-empt the vocab­u­lary in order to gain the moral/political high ground.”22

Through emo­tive seman­tics, this doc­tor has unsuc­cess­fully attempted to claim the moral high ground.

The lad­der of knowledgeNicholas Mur­ray But­ler was chief spokesman for the huge con­glom­er­ate J P Mor­gan and Co. But­ler once stated:

The world is divided into three classes of peo­ple: a very small group that makes things hap­pen, a some­what larger group that watches things hap­pen, and the great mul­ti­tude which never knows what is really hap­pen­ing.” 23

Lower down the lad­der of con­ven­tional can­cer knowl­edge, these poi­so­nous prod­ucts are being man­u­fac­tured and admin­is­tered by mul­ti­tudes who are proud to be asso­ci­ated with med­i­cines ‘designed to save lives’.

Work­ing under such tremen­dous pres­sures every sin­gle day, doc­tors, nurses and physi­cians just do not have the time to step off the con­ven­tional tread­mill and take time to catch up on con­trary research. And so, most con­ven­tional doc­tors fall into the cat­e­gory of Butler’s ‘great mul­ti­tude’. It is far sim­pler and more expe­di­ent to dis­miss all con­trary infor­ma­tion as fringe lunacy and con­spir­acy the­ory until such times as it appears either in a recog­nised con­ven­tional med­ical jour­nal or as a prod­uct warn­ing from the drug man­u­fac­tur­ers. Then, and only then, is the infor­ma­tion con­sid­ered seri­ously. And even at this point, some doc­tors strug­gle to alter their pre­scrib­ing habits.

Which brings us to the next thorny dilemma. Could your own doc­tor (with whom you may well have a trust­ing rela­tion­ship) be in pos­ses­sion of cer­tain knowl­edge that is crit­i­cal to your case, but feels con­strained and unable to share it directly with you? In other words, could your doc­tor know­ingly keep vital infor­ma­tion from you?

Excerpted from Great News on Can­cer in the 21st Cen­tury by Steven Ransom

Copy­right © 2004 Steven Ransom

1 USA Today, 20th Feb­ru­ary 2001 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001–02-20-icu-misdiagnoses.htm

2 Smart­light Mammographics


3Times Colonist, front page, 10th Sep­tem­ber 1999, Vic­to­ria, Canada

4Underwood, Ann, “When Knowl­edge Does Dam­age”, Newsweek, 10th April 2000

5 ‘I’m sorry,’ says bungling doc­tor, Brighton Evening Argus, 14th June 2000


6 Please see our ‘Health Warn­ing to Expec­tant Moth­ers’ at the end of this book.

7 Komo4 News, Seat­tle, 26th July 2001, More Can­cer Mis­di­ag­no­sis Cases, http://www.komotv.com/news/story_sr.asp?ID=12896

8 Short, Robert, “Cer­vi­cal Can­cer Mis­di­ag­no­sis Shakes UK Pub­lic Con­fi­dence In Screen­ing”, The Doctor’s Guide Global Edi­tion, 7th May 2001, http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1fa326.htm

9 ABC News, Screen­ing for Prostate Can­cer Urol­o­gists Remain Divided Over PSABlood Test, 15th June 2003 at


10 Car­bone, Suzanne, ‘Prostate test under fire in study’, The Age, July 2002 at


11 Paul­ing L, Cameron E, Can­cer and Vit­a­min C: A Dis­cus­sion of the Nature, Causes, Pre­ven­tion, and Treat­ment of Can­cer With Spe­cial Ref­er­ence to the Value of Vit­a­min C, Wei­den­feld Pub­lish­ers, Octo­ber 1980

12 Ibid.

13 http://www.anytestkits.com/prostate.htm

14 Test for Metatas­tic Thy­roid Can­cer, The Reporter, Feb­ru­ary 1997 at


15 Thy­roid tests at http://www.thyroidcancer.com/thyroid_tests.htm

16 Moe­laert, John, The Can­cer Con­spir­acy, op. cit.

17 What’s new in pan­cre­atic research and treat­ment? The Amer­i­can Can­cer Soci­ety at


18 Jour­nal of Amer­i­can Med­i­cine, 5th July 1995, 274:29–34

19 Moe­laert, John, op. cit.

20 Bates, Phillip, Health Revolution,Vitamin C and Cancer:


21 Per­sonal cor­re­spon­dence. Let­ter on file.

22 Packard, Vance, Hid­den Per­suaders, D Mackay & Co, 1957

23 An Intro­duc­tion to Pres­i­dent Clinton’s polit­i­cal men­tor, Car­roll Quigley.

“The One Thing the Estab­lish­ment Fears.” Earth­link Publications,


(NaturalNews) A recent study presented at the National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) has found that resveratrol, a nutrient compound found in grape skins, blueberries, and red wine, can improve motor coordination and help prevent falls among the elderly. And in presenting the findings, researchers dubbed resveratrol a "miracle molecule," presumably because of its many other known health benefits.

Conducted by Jane Cavanaugh, an assistant professor of pharmacology at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleague, the study found that laboratory mice given resveratrol as part of their normal diet maintained better movement coordination as they aged compared to other mice. The resveratrol mice also experienced less degradation in their nerve tissues compared to other mice, which helped them effectively thwart many of the negative effects of aging.

Cavanaugh's assistant Erika Allen, a graduate student, fed both young and old mice a diet containing resveratrol for eight weeks. She also compared each mouse's ability, both before and after the resveratrol regimen, to cross a steel mesh balance beam, reportedly documenting and analyzing each stumble or misstep along the way.

By the fourth week, she and Cavanaugh began observing that older mice who had trouble crossing the balance beam at the start of the study were experiencing dramatic improvements as a result of taking resveratrol. These older mice, in fact, were already effectively able to keep up with the younger mice a mere halfway into the study, a remarkable observation.

Additionally, mice taking resveratrol experienced less neural cell death than other mice, indicating that resveratrol somehow blocks the cell death that is normally induced by the neurotransmitter dopamine as a result of stress. Taking resveratrol, in other words, has the potential to block stress-induced aging, as well as protect nerve cells from being damaged or killed.

"We believe that resveratrol is either removing the byproducts of dopamine metabolism, which are harmful to neural cells, or increasing resistance in the cells themselves," said Cavanaugh to Wine Spectator about her findings, noting that the dose of resveratrol needed in humans to potentially achieve similar results would be the equivalent of drinking roughly 700 glasses of red wine a day.

Resveratrol shown to treat, cure diabetesIn another amazing study recently published in the journal Nutrition Research, researchers out of India found that resveratrol also helps fight and even cure type-2 diabetes by normalizing hemoglobin levels in the blood. Compared to diabetics receiving only oral hypoglycemic drugs, diabetics taking 250 milligrams (mg) daily of a specific brand of resveratrol for three months experienced dramatically improved blood sugar levels.

These same trial patients reportedly experienced both lowered blood pressure levels and improved blood cholesterol levels as a result of taking resveratrol, which confirms what numerous other studies in years past have found concerning the nutrient's incredible ability to fight chronic inflammation; improve cognitive function; promote longevity; boost heart health; and target disease-causing free radicals, among other benefits. (http://www.naturalnews.com/resveratrol.html)

"Oral supplementation of resveratrol is thus found to be effective in improving glycemic control and may possibly provide a potential adjuvant for the treatment and management of diabetes," wrote the authors of the Indian study in their review. (http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com)

Sources for this article include:


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037294_resveratrol_miracle_nutrient.html#ixzz29dqGxtBE
By Tony Isaacs

Every year October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and we find the country awash in a sea of pink from shore to shore  – from pink ribbons and donation boxes to pink products, charity promotions, celebrities by the score and even pink cleats on NFL players. Tragically, few people are aware of the dark history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) and the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer.

The Founding of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Most people are unaware that the BCAM idea was conceived and paid for by the British chemical company Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), a company that both profited from the ever-growing cancer epidemic and contributed to its causes.  The American subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries, ICI/Astra-Zeneca manufactures tamoxifen, the world's top-selling cancer drug used for breast cancer. ICI itself is in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic chemicals and is one of the world’s largest producers and users of chlorine.

Although BCAM was co-founded along with two non-profit organizations and some big name companies were quick to associate with BCAM, for the first several years, BCAM's bills were paid by ICI’s Zeneca Pharmaceuticals. 

As the controlling sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), Zeneca was able to approve—or veto—any promotional or informational materials, posters, advertisements, etc. that BCAM uses. The focus is strictly limited to information regarding early detection and treatment, avoiding the topic of prevention and the role toxins may play.  A further look at the major players in breast cancer awareness may give plenty of insight as to why a growing number of critics are asking why such is the case.

Take Zeneca for example, which later merged into Astra-Zeneca and in 2008, ICI/Astra-Zeneca changed its name to AzkoNobel and reported annual sales of over 22 Billion Dollars.  ICI has long been among the world’s largest manufacturers of pesticides, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant was once identified as the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.

After Zeneca acquired the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997 and then merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra to form AstraZeneca, creating the world's third-largest drug concern, Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health stated, “This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine.”

“You've got a company that's a spinoff of one of the world's biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they've got control of breast cancer treatment, they've got control of the chemoprevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers-which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture."

The breakdown of $14 Billion in profits for ICI in 1997 was 49 percent from pesticides and other industrial chemicals, another 49 percent from pharmaceutical sales, and the remaining 2 percent from health care services including 11 cancer treatment centers. Zeneca’s herbicide acetochlor, which is classified by the EPA as a "probable human carcinogen", and which AstraZeneca sold until a corporate reorganization in 2000, accounted for around $300 million in sales in 1997. Their product tamoxifen citrate (Nolvadex) accounted for $500 million in 1997 sales. Cancer prevention would clearly conflict with Zeneca’s business plan.

Quickly jumping onboard the tamoxifen bandwagon was the National Cancer Institute, which announced in April 1998 that breast cancer could be ‘prevented’ by treating women continuously with a powerful drug called tamoxifen. The New York Times editorialized on April 8th that treating women with tamoxifen is a ‘breast cancer breakthrough.’ However, The Times acknowledged that treating 1,000 women with tamoxifen for five years would prevent 17 breast cancers but would cause an additional 12 cases of endometrial cancer and 20 cases of serious blood clots in the same 1,000 women.

As recent studies have shown, the risks implied in those less-than breakthrough figures were vastly understated.  For example, as Natural News reported in 2009, a study published in Cancer Research concluded that long-term use of tamoxifen actually increases the risk of getting aggressive cancer in the other breast by 440 percent.



Other large corporations which contribute to breast cancer awareness also have a vested interest in breast cancer. In many instances, these not only profit from cancer, they also sell products which cause cancer.  Thus, at the same time that they promote their products they also help direct research and treatments away from their toxic and cancer causing products.

General Electric sells upwards of $100 million annually in mammography machines.  General Electric has also been a major polluter of carcinogenic PCBs in the Hudson River. An estimated million pounds of PCBs lie buried at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson, where GE dumped PCB oil until the mid-1970s, contaminating the entire 200-mile length of the river below Hudson Falls.

DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group.

Biotech giant Monsanto is a major sponsor Breast Cancer Awareness Month's high profile event, the Race for the Cure. At the same time, Monsanto reaps huge profits from products which cause breast and other cancers. Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, rBGH, is widely used to to increase milk production in cows and milk with rBGH contains up to 10 times the naturally occurring growth hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor I (IGF-1). Studies have shown that women with elevated levels of IGF-1 are 7 times more likely to develop pre-menopausal breast cancer and the hormone has been identified as one of the leading risk factors for breast cancer as well as colon and prostate cancer.

A study published in the October, 2012 edition of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicologyprovided unprecedented evidence of the cancer causing dangers of the combination of Monsanto's genetically modified corn and Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, which the corn was modified to withstand. Female rats fed GMO corn treated with Roundup developed large mammary tumors more often than and before controls and died 2 - 3 times faster than control groups. The pituitary was the second most disabled organ. Treated male rats developed 4 times more large tumors than controls and the tumor development occurred up to 600 days earlier, primarily in the livers and kidneys.

Another large player is Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), with their Tour of Hope and promotions such as 10 cent donations for drug store sales of selected BMS products.  BMS is also the manufacturer of Taxol (under the trade name of Paclitaxel), considered to be “the gold standard” of chemo drugs.  As Natural News reported earlier this month, the so-called “gold standard” has more than lost its luster, as was presented at 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium:

"German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the "gold standard of chemo") causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

"Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxol."



Nowhere is the hypocrisy of the Breast Cancer Awareness Movement more evident than in the actions of "do good" cosmetic and body care companies, including such industry powerhouses as Estée Lauder, Avon, Revlon, and Mary Kay. Annually, they market pink-ribboned packaged cosmetics and body care products as well as contribute funds which help continue the cover-up up and misdirection of breast cancer research, treatment and prevention. Many of the same products they push as part of their campaign contribute to breast and other cancer.

Hormone-mimicking chemicals such as parabens and phthalates have been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer and have a broad range of birth defects. A study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology in 2012 detected paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.

The list of corporate donors and players in Breast Cancer Awareness goes on and on, including other chemical and pharmaceutical companies, cosmetic companies, fast food restaurants, donut and cookie makers, and many more.  They all share the common traits of promoting “awareness” while excluding the role their own products play, and promoting early screening through mammograms.  Likewise, other charities and foundations – and their sponsors - have joined the pink bandwagon, and once again, they have common links of promoting early detection, primarily through mammograms, and remaining mostly silent about toxins and other environmental factors.

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance
  • In 1906, the Mayo Clinic in conjunction with Weston Price DDS, MS as head of research for the dental association of that time, announced that root canals were a haven for disease-producing bacteria
  • Research showed that heart attacks could be induced 100 percent percent of the time, implicating root canals as one of the primary causes of heart disease – currently the number one killer of Americans
  • Toxins from these bacteria together with mercury from dental amalgam have the ability to alter your DNA and RNA, increasing the potential for disease and/or birth defects in future generations
  • Diseases that could potentially be dental related include chronic fatigue, heart disease, meningitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV)

Read the full story here
The toxic trade in fake make-up: How counterfeit cosmetics containing dangerous levels of arsenic are being sold online to unsuspecting bargain hunters  
By CHARLOTTE KEMP Daily Mail.co.uk

Read the full story here

When Mandy Lanham saw her favourite foundation for sale online at a greatly reduced price she snapped it up — after all, few of us can resist a beauty bargain. 

The product — called Some Kinda Gorgeous and made by popular cosmetics brand Benefit — was being sold new on eBay by a seemingly reputable seller and duly arrived a few days later. 

Having saved £10 on the recommended retail price of £23.50, Mandy, 48, a part-time teacher from East Sussex, was quietly smug.

‘I thought it was a very good price but not so cheap that I was suspicious,’ she says. ‘I’d been looking for presents for my daughters when I spotted it. I checked out the ratings of the seller and all the feedback from customers was positive. The packaging in the picture looked convincing, too.’

Alarm bells only started ringing when the product arrived and Mandy put the make-up on her face. 
‘It felt sticky and unpleasant on my skin and I noticed the medium shade I’d chosen wasn’t the same as the old one that I’d bought from a Benefit counter in a department store. It didn’t smell the same either,’ she says.
The following morning, Mandy’s skin had flared up. Her face felt tender and puffy and it took a few hours for the swelling to go down. Mandy had unwittingly bought a fake — a fact confirmed when she contacted trading standards officers. 

Even though the compact looked the part, the foundation inside was nothing like the real thing. Far more worrying, though, was the fact that something in Mandy’s bogus foundation triggered an allergic reaction. 


Profits made from counterfeit make-up are used to fund drugs smuggling and terrorism, say Interpol

For this is the shocking flipside to the shadowy world of counterfeit cosmetics. 

The cheaper imitations that are flooding the market may look legitimate — as well as please the purse — but they have been found to contain ingredients that at best irritate the skin and which could, in the worst cases, cause permanent damage to both the body and the brain. 

Out of ten items of designer make-up we purchased online in the past two weeks, eight were found to be counterfeit when the packaging and the product were compared with the genuine article. 

When we asked Staffordshire Scientific Services to test the products using the same methods trading standards officers employ, all the fakes were found to contain a cocktail of potentially harmful ingredients ranging from lead, copper and mercury to arsenic and cadmium, a metal which is highly dangerous. 

A counterfeit MAC eyeliner sold on Amazon at £3.50 (it normally sells at £14) contained 46 times the permitted level of copper, making it unfit for use on eyes.

Worryingly, dermatologists are now reporting a rise in the number of women with skin conditions triggered by the use of counterfeit make-up. These can range from acne and swelling to more serious skin conditions, such as psoriasis.

‘It’s only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt,’ says Christine Heemskerk, of the Trading Standards Institute. 

She warns: ‘These counterfeit cosmetic products may not have been made in a sterile environment. They may contain carcinogenic ingredients that are banned from use in cosmetics and could cause long-term harm.

‘They may trigger rashes and eye infections as well as more serious conditions such as lead poisoning, which can affect major organs, causing problems for the heart, kidneys and nervous system.’
Read the full story here.