In a letter written to Dr. Ralph Moss, two-time Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling, Ph.D., makes his opinion clear. “Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud, and that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”


Even the U.S. Federal Government thinks the supposed progress in cancer by the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and ACS (American Cancer Society) are bogus.

United States General Accounting Office (GAO). House of Representatives report, Cancer Patient Survival: What Progress Has Been Made? March 1987
A dozen forms of cancer were studied, and it was found that dramatic improvements in survival rates occured only two relatively rare cancers — acute leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. “For the majority of cancers we examined, the actual improvements have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates.” It charged that unacknowledged factors, such as the earlier detection of certain cancers and changes in the way data were compiled, ”artificially inflate the amount of ‘true’ progress.”


New York Times article about the GAO report says that, “GAINS AGAINST CANCER SINCE 1950 ARE OVERSTATED, CONGRESS IS TOLD”

Chicago Tribune article echoing what the NY Times said with their headline, “Cancer Gains Called Overstated.”

In the United States Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., noted herein as “One of the Nation’s leading cancer researchers,” is quoted on page 23651. “There is no evidence of substantial improvements in treatment over the last few decades, during which five year survival and age-adjusted mortality rates for the major cancer killers, lung, breast and colon besides for most other organs, have remained essentially unchanged. The only improvements have been for cancer of the cervix, and for relatively rare cancers, such as testicular seminomas, Hodgkin’s disease and childhood leukemias treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy. Apart from immediate toxicity, such treatment while effective, can increase the subsequent risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times.”

The New York Times, “Cancer Progress: Are the statistics telling the truth?”
Multiple very distinguished analysts suggest that the highly touted gains in ”survival rates” among cancer patients in recent years are partly, or perhaps even largely, a statistical mirage, caused more by changes in the way cancer is detected and defined than by any real gains in the ability of doctors to cure cancer once it is detected.
Sir Richard Peto, M.D., FRS, ”There has been disappointingly little progress in curative treatment since the middle of this century.”
Dr. John Cairns, M.D., ”Their body counts are way too high…They come up with statistics that don’t add up.”
Dr. John C. Bailar III, M.D., “survival rates for cancer victims are not going up very much” and that statistical measures of those gains often turn out to be ”rubber numbers” by which people are ”very seriously misled.”
Dr. Haydn Bush, M.D., ”We’re not curing much more cancer than we were a generation ago. There has been very little progress on the biggest cancer killers of the last 25 years…The more cures the press releases claim, the more money cancer organizations raise.”

The Lancet Editorial “Overoptimism about cancer”, in Volume 355, Issue 9199, Page 157, January 15, 2000, addresses the exaggerations regarding cancer progress.
“There is no doubt that the cancer charities are doing good work… Even so, there is no case for flagrant exaggeration… maintenance of public confidence is crucial for fundraising. Such confidence will be shattered when the public starts to see the gap between what is being said and what is being achieved.”

It still goes on…

Medical Journal of Australia, An analysis of newspaper reports of cancer breakthroughs: hope or hype? By: Ethel S Ooi and Simon Chapman, 2003; 179: 639–643
Conclusion: “Cancer research findings reported in newspapers as “breakthroughs” are often not true breakthroughs but may be important for ongoing research. Consumers are likely to be receiving an overly optimistic picture of progress in understanding and treating cancer.”

Journal of The National Medical Association, 2003, July, vol. 95, No. 7, p. 637-639
NCI sets goal of eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by 2015
By: Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., Director of the National Cancer Institute
“we can achieve the 2015 goal if we reach for it…I believe that by 2015, we can bring many cancers under control as chronic, manageable diseases, much like diabetes and heart disease.”
Former President-elect of the American Cancer Society
Former Director of the National Cancer Institute from 2001-2005
Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration from 2005–2009
Since 2009 Private Pharma

So why would these organizations overstate their goals and progress? Logic tells us it has to do with government funding and donations.

“The good news about cancer must be emphasized and, if need be, manufactured, to keep up public spirits and support… for more money… without public interference in the use of the money.”
Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion, By Daniel S. Greenberg ISBN-13: 978-0226306353 ISBN-10: 0226306356

“Each year, Congress appropriates billions of dollars for scientific research. In this book, veteran science reporter Daniel S. Greenberg takes us behind closed doors to show us who gets it, and why. What he reveals is startling: an overlooked world of false claims, pork, and cronyism, where science, money, and politics all manipulate one another.”

1992- Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., noted in the United States Congressional Record as “One of the Nation’s leading cancer researchers,” led a group of 68 noted physicians and scientists who were experts in cancer prevention, public health and preventative medicine in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with the message: LOSING THE “WAR AGAINST CANCER”:
A NEED FOR PUBLIC POLICY REFORMS* “The cancer establishment confuses the public with repeated claims that we are winning the war on cancer… Furthermore, the cancer establishment and major pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly made extravagant and unfounded claims for dramatic advances in the treatment and “cure” of cancer. Such claims are generally based on an initial reduction in tumor size (“tumor response”) rather than on prolongation of survival, let alone on the quality of life, which is often devastated by highly toxic treatments.” Understandably The NCI (National Cancer Institute) and the ACS (American Cancer Society) vehemently disagreed.
Ingram, B., Medical Tribune, vol.33, no.4, p.1, Feb.1992

International Journal of Health Services, Volume 22, Number 3, Pages 455-469, 1992

Palliative Medicine, October 1995, vol. 9, no. 4, pages 269-271
Is there a better way? Bioethical reflections on palliative cytotoxic drug use
By: McGrath & Kearsley
“…sufficient funding is urgently needed to research and develop the use of a wider range of holistic support services, so that options other than cytotoxic chemotherapy can be recommended as a valid means by which the lot of patients with metastatic cancer can be improved.”

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 84 February 1991, pages 95-98
Temple NJ, Burkitt DB (1991). The war on cancer: failure of therapy and research.
By: NJ Temple, Ph.D. & DP Burkitt, M.D.
“…most of the expense and effort devoted to the management of cancer is directed towards early diagnosis (screening) and improved therapy. Evidence has steadily accrued that this strategy is essentially a failure: little impact has been made on the toll taken by the major cancers. Medicine should admit its severe limitations in therapy and redirect itself. Using the fruits of an expanded research programme into such areas as diet and exercise, medicine should strive to apply this knowledge to cancer prevention…The war is not being won. Nevertheless, medicine shows few signs of admitting that its strategy may be flawed. In this it resembles a World War I general who stated: ‘Casualties: huge. Ground gained: negligible. Conclusion: press on.”

In the May 8, 1986 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 314 Number 19, in the article entitled: Progress against cancer? It states “In our view, the single best measure of progress against cancer is change in the age-adjusted mortality rates associated with all cancers in the total population. According to this measure, we are losing the war against cancer”. as well as “some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.”

Issues in Science and Technology, 1987 Fall;4(1):16-21.
Rethinking the war on cancer. By: Dr. John C.Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., professor in the Dept. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University, & statistical consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, former editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
“Our failure to lower the U.S. cancer death rate, despite an effort spanning 35 years, shows the need for a change of strategy…Promises unfulfilled- The conclusion from these data is inescapable: We have had very little success in reducing overall cancer death rates or incidence rates, or in improving case survival rates. To the extent that these measures embody national targets or goals, we are losing the war against cancer.”

Journal of Interprofessional Care , 1988, Vol. 3, No. 2 , Pages 91-98
The War on Cancer: I Victory or Deadlock?|
By: H. S. Ladas, “An overall view of the situation suggests that critics…have not yet fully expressed the extent…of the magnitude of the failure of the war on cancer.”

Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1988, Vol. 3, No. 2 , Pages 99-108
The War on Cancer: II Reactions to Innovative Treatments. By: H.S. Ladas.
“Part I of this article supports the view that reported progress in the war on cancer is a statistical illusion and that research showing gains in treatment is flawed.”

International Journal of Cancer, 1989 Feb 15;43(2):245-9
By: Becker, Smith, & Wahrendorf. Time trends in cancer mortality in the Federal Republic of Germany: progress against cancer?
“In accordance with a previous analysis of US cancer mortality, this report also indicates that cancer mortality in the FRG over the last 3 decades (1952-1985) has not shown any decline commencing in a given period and prevailing in all age groups. If present, such effects could have been interpreted as a manifestation of improvements associated with cancer treatment. The absence of such an effect…supports the view expressed in the US analysis that improvements in cancer treatment are unlikely to have an impact on overall cancer mortality statistics and that efforts toward prevention may be more rewarding.”

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 11, No 5 (May), 1993: pp 1006, A cry from the fringe, by: Weissman et al. “Dr. Braverman wrote a provocative editorial in 1991, ‘The oncology community should respond to the data of the past decade by scaling back the whole chemotherapy enterprise.’ Many of us agree with that assessment…chemotherapy regimens have become increasingly complex, toxic, and expensive, with little improvement in outcome for the most common tumors…A major shift in resources away from conventional chemotherapy is needed…”

In the May 29, 1997 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 336 Number 22, in the article entitled: CANCER UNDEFEATED, it states “In 1986, we concluded that “some 35 years of in-tense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure.” Now, with 12 more years of data and experience, we see little reason to change that conclusion…The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing.”

Cancer Biology & Therapy, February 2005, 4:2, 252-254
Changing winds in the war on cancer, By: Dr. Eugene W. Gerner, Ph.D., Professor of Cell Biology & Anatomy, University of Arizona.
“I became discouraged by our apparent inability to objectively increase survival or decrease mortality rates for patients afflicted with the most common cancers (i.e., lung, colon, breast, prostate).”

The Lancet, 2013 Editorial “The failure of cancer medicine?”, in Volume 381, Issue 9865, Page 423, February 9, 2013 makes some startling statements. Respected oncologist, Dr. Franco Cavalli, M.D., says, “Current strategies to control cancer are demonstrably not working.” It continues with, “Worldwide cancer diagnoses and deaths are increasing. 8 million people died from cancer in 2010, a 38% increase compared with 1990. Cancer diagnoses are estimated to double by 2030.” It concludes with “has cancer medicine failed patients? In the words of cancer experts, the answer is yes.”

The Lancet, 2014; 383: 558–63
Rethinking the war on cancer, By: Prof. Douglas Hanahan, Ph.D., Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research.
“The war on cancer has largely focused on mutant cancer cells, via chemotherapy and radiotherapy and, more recently, targeted therapy based on knowledge of the driver mutations that force the chronic proliferation that is the basis of the disease. Most of the time, however, cancers eventually find ways to circumvent such targeted strikes, adapting and then reemerging as expansive and often more aggressive growths…targeted therapies are generally not curative or even enduringly effective, because of the adaptive and evasive resistance strategies developed by cancers under attack.”

No amount of marketing “spin” can hide the facts…

The Wall Street Journal reports in the October 16, 2002 issue that New statistics are showing increases in cancer rates. Cancer rates are going up, not down.

National Institutes of Health“In 1975, the incidence rate for all cancers combined in the United States was 400 new cases for every 100,000 people in the population….In 2007, the latest year for which we have updated statistics, the U.S. incidence rate for all cancers combined was 461 new cases diagnosed for every 100,000 people in the population…”

The front page of USA Today, May 29, 1997, p. A1 reports that “After 26 years of research and $30 billion in spending, the federal government’s “War on Cancer” has failed to reduce death rates”.

Cancer, Is the Long-Term Survival of Patients with Intracranial Glioblastoma Multiforme Overstated? Volume 98, Issue 8, pages 1745–1748, 15 October 2003, By: Dr. Roger E. McLendon, M.D., and Dr. Edward C. Halperin, M.D.
The 5-year survival rate for intracranial glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has remained at 4–5% for the last 30 years, in spite of multiple randomized prospective trials. The authors hypothesized, based on the literature, that even this remarkably poor survival rate is an overstatement. Their research found it to be 2%.

The World Oncology Forum in Lugano, Switzerland, concluded in October, 2012, that present strategies to control cancer are not working. Preventable cancers are not being prevented; patients are suffering and dying unnecessarily from cancers that are detectable and treatable; and the model for developing effective new curative therapies is not fit for purpose.

International Journal of Health Services, THE CRISIS IN U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL CANCER POLICY, By Epstein et al. Volume 32, Number 4, Pages 669–707, 2002. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., noted in the United States Congressional Record as “One of the Nation’s leading cancer researchers,” hit hard at the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and ACS (American Cancer Society) with this revealing commentary. “The cancer establishment has shown reckless failure to warn the public, the media, Congress, and regulatory agencies of experimental evidence on a wide range of avoidable risk factors or causes of cancer…”

no-real-progress-against-cancerNo real progress against Cancer

mammograms-and-nejm-big-studyMammography exposed in the NEJM

mammograms-cause-breast-cancer-dr-ben-johnsonMammograms cause Breast Cancer

mammograms-do-not-save-lives-cnnMammograms do not save lives CNN

mammograms-get-some-women-unnecessary-treatmentMammograms get many women unnecessary treatment

mammograms-save-lives-debunked-nbc-newsMammograms Save Lives? Debunked on NBC News

mammogram-study_test-doesnt-save-lives-of-women-40-59Mammogram study: Test doesn’t save lives of women 40-59

mammogram-the-history-and-the-shamMammogram: the history and the sham

mammography-is-ineffective-ctv-national-newsMammography is ineffective, CTV National News

mammography-the-truth-about-itMammography: the truth about it