Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby hoi.polloi on July 8th, 2014, 8:15 am

So I know that this topic has already been broached a number of ways in a number of areas, but I think it's time to try to sort out what we think we know from what we are pretty certain we don't know. It has been brought up a number of times that the notorious Red Cross organization often comes in to any 'radiation' situation and bullies others out of it, then gets exclusive control over the PR. This is highly suspicious but not inherently a clue radiation isn't real — only, in my mind, a sense that it is controlled for some reason. Forgive me for exercising some belief in this phenomenon until it is more ruled out than just fake footage somewhat ruling out real tech.

To add to the conversation, I have recently come across a "Geiger counter" — actually an entire stash of them in some strange sort of buried cache. That full story may have to wait for later, but for now, I am kind of delighted that something dealing directly with our latest questions about the world's physics has a chance to be examined closer. It's like getting access to a special telescope or microscope or something else the average person doesn't have just laying around. But having this clunky device right in front of me, I am not sure what exactly I am meant to do with it or how I can use it to try to test for radiation. Or determine how radiation ticks on one of these is different from — say — stray light waves causing static on a receiver.

I am not sure "radiation" or something like it is a real phenomenon because of the prevalence of radon here in Minnesota or its fairly well-known correlation between indicators and incidents of lung cancer. As for other forms, I really do not know. It's not quite clear for me. If all radiation is as horrific as we are told, perhaps I do not want to know.

I am far more likely, at this point, to choose to believe in 'dirty bombs' which spread toxicity over any sort of fantasy chain-reaction balloon effect that they claim are 'nuclear weapons', certainly. But does that mean I have to understand what the toxic filthiness actually is?

How would other members weigh in on the story of heavy "atoms"? And let's not just say "I think they are real" or "I think they are fake".
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby hoi.polloi on August 31st, 2014, 10:40 pm

FEAR vs. RADIATION: The Mismatch
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opini ... .html?_r=0

In a rare, little-nonsense, perfectly mainstream article, someone has laid out a number of reasons why fears of nuclear radiation have been hyped.

... leading health scientists say the radiation from Fukushima has been relatively harmless, which is similar to results found after studying the health effects of Chernobyl.


What can one make of an article like this? Truth leaking through, in order to effectively bury it in the mountain of rubbish and lies that normally dominates the New York Times? Clearly (to me), with sentences like this one:

The most current analysis estimates that, out of 10,929 people in the exposed population who have died of cancer, only 527 of those deaths were caused by radiation from the atomic bombs. For the entire population exposed, in many cases to extremely high levels of radiation, that’s an excess cancer mortality rate of about two-thirds of 1 percent.

These studies have also found that, more than two generations later, there have been no multigenerational genetic effects on humans


... it becomes harder to argue for a lower number of unspecifically "radiated" deaths. Perhaps the point is just an attempt to drive home a small number, lest we cast out the entire lot?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby Lazlo on September 1st, 2014, 1:48 pm

Ropeik, the author of this NYT's op/ed piece is one of those "been everywhere and done everything" kind of people. Notice how he glides slickly like a musical glissando about his knowledge of the Boston Bombing when he said "I covered this," it is unclear whether he is speaking of the recent "bombing" event or that he had covered the event at some time in the past.

Image
Glissando

I am not trying to make a pro/anti bomb statement. Someone I trust thinks that the Japan attacks were huge air burst bombs which are said to be more destructive per unit volume than what is attributed to atomic weapons. Conversely, I am a big fan of Richard Feynman and he worked on the Manhattan Project. I just question the guys use of such a discrete figure like (only 527 radiation/only deaths). If you dig around in the literature you will find a lot of uncertainty about the figures. This guy is supposed to be an adjunct Harvard prof and a risk assessor and he doesn't cite any sources for his figures.

Ropeik on Boston (note the ambiguity): http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000161882
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby lux on September 4th, 2014, 2:37 am

hoi.polloi wrote:To add to the conversation, I have recently come across a "Geiger counter" — actually an entire stash of them in some strange sort of buried cache. That full story may have to wait for later, but for now, I am kind of delighted that something dealing directly with our latest questions about the world's physics has a chance to be examined closer. It's like getting access to a special telescope or microscope or something else the average person doesn't have just laying around. But having this clunky device right in front of me, I am not sure what exactly I am meant to do with it or how I can use it to try to test for radiation. Or determine how radiation ticks on one of these is different from — say — stray light waves causing static on a receiver.


This radiation nerd has a number of tutorial type videos which you might find helpful in learning some of the basics. Not that I know anything about the subject but he just seems to have a lot of information at least and is fairly straightforward about explaining things. He's also not a scientist -- just an enthusiast.

This is one of his videos:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tOARezivxo
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby Lazlo on September 4th, 2014, 3:06 am

It would be easy to do a bunch of experiments with that thing. Depending on where you live and the sensitivity of the device you could check for Radon gas in a windowless (optimal) basement. I have at least one room in my house that I can fully black-out to obviate any light emission, perhaps you or a friend does as well. You can buy radioactive samples on the net from eBay and Amazon. Some smoke detectors have something radioactive in them. The sample pictured below is around 34 bucks on Amazon:




Image

Uranium disk eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Geiger-Counter- ... 2a42f995a7

While the Aussies say it is safe, I have heard not to touch the actual sample of radioactive material in your smoke alarm:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/factshee ... tector.pdf

Everyday stuff with radiation properties: http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/fa ... ducts.html


More common things to check: http://listverse.com/2013/02/06/10-thin ... dioactive/



The experiment Hoi hinted at, that of removing "stray light waves causing static on a receiver," was done in the detection of Neutrinos. Large drums of Carbon tetrachloride were buried deep underground with sensors to trap the particles. Carbon tet is dry cleaning fluid and I love the allusion to dry cleaning the Universe.
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ProperGander on October 9th, 2015, 7:56 am

I came across this recently.

The Nuclear Scare Scam | Galen Winsor

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby fbenario on October 11th, 2015, 9:47 pm

ProperGander wrote:I came across this recently.

The Nuclear Scare Scam | Galen Winsor

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA

Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.

Remember, you shouldn't simply post a video of something without telling readers why they should watch it. Please always set forth what we will learn from the video. Otherwise, few folks will bother watching it, and your effort will be wasted.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ProperGander on October 11th, 2015, 10:45 pm

Thanks for the criticism. Sometimes I forget to explain why I am posting something, when posting.

This is worth watching as this man claims he could safely handle nuclear waste.
I can't be more specific as I am no expert. Here was a account that differed from the mainstream narrative, by a man who is supposed to be an industry insider.
He explains how they changed the rules for the 'safe levels' of radiation and so on.

Its something that might be worth watching if one is interested in this subject. I would point out that we cannot know for sure if he is a reliable source or not, but that this might be something to consider.

Sometimes we come across things that don't make sense to us until much later. The first time I came across allot of the really great research here, I didn't know what to make of most of it. I read it all anyway, and after it all soaked in and after I read a news article about a NASA experiment, I realized you guys were on the right track and more than that you had really shown the world that a 'tipping point' has occurred. The internet and Google, ironically perhaps, provides us with a library never before seen in history. This is our tool to free our own minds from the propaganda for ourselves.

After decades of message boards and plenty of nonsense, there is finally a place on the internet one can virtually go to and be exposed to ideas that actually begin to describe the world we live in, unlike all the other deceptive media we are exposed to.
Last edited by ProperGander on October 12th, 2015, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby arc300 on October 12th, 2015, 12:29 am

In the eerie emptiness of Chernobyl's abandoned towns, wildlife is flourishing
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11527614

A few extracts:

"That's according to a study published this week in the journal Current Biology, which found that mammal numbers in the exclusion zone are as high, if not higher, than in even the most protected parks in Belarus."

"What's surprising here was the life was able to increase even in an area that is among the most radioactively contaminated in the world."

"In other words, whatever the fallout from the disaster may have been, it turned out that the absence of humans was more than enough to compensate.

"It shows I think that how much damage we do," said fellow co-author Jim Smith, an environmental science professor at the University of Portsmouth. "It's kind of obvious but our everyday activities associated with being in a place are what damages the environment."

"Not that radiation isn't bad," he added, "but what people do when they're there is so much worse."

"This indicates to researchers that chronic exposure to radiation from the explosion has had no impact on overall mammal populations. Whatever fallout may have come from the initial explosion was completely offset by the benefits of life without humans.

"The presence of wolves is particularly telling. As apex predators, they are a sign of the health of the entire ecosystem - if they're flourishing, that means that every other level of species, from elk and deer on down to insects and plants, must also be healthy."

------------------------------------------------------END-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if the report is true, then this would be good reason to ask whether the claimed danger of radiation is as it's made out to be. Yet rather than asking this question, the scientists Smith and Hinton seem much more intent on a bit of human-bashing, telling all what a dangerous species we are. I'll bet they both worship at the temple of global warming, as well.
arc300
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: April 27th, 2012, 11:13 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ICfreely on October 12th, 2015, 7:40 am

Very interesting posts! This is a very important topic that deserves more attention. Exploring/exposing the sordid history & utter absurdity of ‘nuclear medicine,’ ‘cancer’ diagnoses and ‘treatments’ is a worthwhile endeavor. The ‘linear, no-threshold’ – ‘all radiation levels are dangerous’ hypothesis is even more ridiculous than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuke hoaxes.

For instance, take direct solar radiation. Exposure to sunlight (far from being dangerous) is the best source of Vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency can lead to illnesses and signs/symptoms that may be diagnosed as ‘cancer.’ In supplement form, Vitamin D is highly ineffective (not absorbed well, if at all). Nothing beats natural sunlight! Topical sun-block lotions a) block Vitamin D absorption, b) plug skin pores thereby preventing natural toxin discharge and c) contain many toxins. But ‘everyone knows’ sun block prevents skin cancer, right?

First they get you to buy into the radiation-cancer cause & effect ‘problem’ and sell you sun-block lotions as the ‘solution.’ The lotions cause illnesses which they diagnose as ‘cancer’ thereby reversing the cause & effect myth they sold you on (not sure if that makes sense). To add injury to injury, after diagnosing you with ‘cancer’ (which is a scandal in its own right, but I digress) they recommend very high doses of radiation (which essentially fry your cells) as one of the ‘treatments’ for your ‘cancer.’ Your ‘disease’ must have been caused by other ‘co-factors’ seeing as you ‘protected’ yourself from ‘dangerous UV radiation.’ And ‘everyone knows’ UVR is drastically increasing due to ‘global warming’ and the ‘hole in the o-zone layer’!

The people who’ve bought into the nuke/global warming hoaxes, have most likely bought into the cancer cause & effect myths and the unholy trinity of cut/burn/poison ‘treatments’ as well (and understandably so). The fact that people, through no fault of their own, have bought into these absurdities is what makes it so important to diffuse the CluesForum nuke hoax research properly. The best of luck, hoi!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby simonshack on October 12th, 2015, 1:32 pm

ProperGander wrote:The first time I came across allot of the really great research here, (...)

After decades of message boards and allot of nonsense, (...)


I think you meant to write 'a lot', ProperGander ? :mellow:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_c ... _allot.htm
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ProperGander on October 12th, 2015, 3:30 pm

simonshack wrote:
ProperGander wrote:The first time I came across allot of the really great research here, (...)

After decades of message boards and allot of nonsense, (...)


I think you meant to write 'a lot', ProperGander ? :mellow:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_c ... _allot.htm


My poor American education is showing. Thanks for the heads up and the grammar lesson! ;)
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ICfreely on March 8th, 2016, 5:33 am

"I must confess that one reason we have undertaken this biological work is that we thereby have been able to get financial support for all of the work in the laboratory. As you know, it is much easier to get funds for medical research."
— Ernest O. Lawrence to Niels Bohr, 1935


The Curious Case of Gunda Jacobson Lawrence

Gunda J. Lawrence was the proud mother of Ernest O. Lawrence (1901-1958) and John H. Lawrence (1904 – 1991). Ernest was the man who ushered in the era of “Big Science.” His brother, not to be outdone, distinguished himself as the “Father of Nuclear Medicine.” According to geni.com Gunda was born on December 3, 1874 and died on May 17, 1959 at the ripe old age of 84.
(http://www.geni.com/people/Gunda-Lawrence/6000000013715319622)


Ernest Lawrence Was On Top Of Nuclear Medicine, Bomb - Scott S. Smith
11/17/2015

Medical Breakthrough

The cyclotron not only smashed atoms, but also produced large quantities of radioisotopes, which had the potential to treat diseases.

Lawrence discovered that in spades in 1937. That’s when he and his brother, John, fought their mother’s uterine cancer.

John, a physician, came to Cal to do research on medical applications of radiation. He and Lawrence then overcame the resistance of their mother’s doctors to use the cyclotron to treat her uterine cancer.

At 67, she had been given only three months to live, but radiation caused the giant tumor to disappear. She lived 16 more years.

[url]http://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/ernest-lawrence-invented-big-science/
[/url]


First of all, if Gunda was born in 1874 she would have been 63 years old in 1937 not 67. Second of all, seeing as she died in 1959 she lived 22 more years not 16. Anyhow, according to investors.com cyclotron radiation allegedly caused her giant uterine tumor to disappear.

According to aip.org Sloan's X-ray tube dramatically improved her inoperable cancer.

Philanthropies at the time donated far more money to medicine, public health, and biology than to physics. In 1933 the Rockefeller Foundation, a dominant supporter of American fundamental research in years between the wars, decided to concentrate on applications of the methods of physics and chemistry to biology and medicine. But Lawrence did not just give lip service to biomedicine. He believed in the promise of particle accelerators as a possible weapon against cancer. In 1937 Lawrence brought his mother, diagnosed with inoperable cancer, to San Francisco for treatment with Sloan's X-ray tube, after which her condition dramatically improved.
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/lawrence/radlab.htm


According to famousscientists.org her inoperable cancer was completely cured!


Keeping it in the Family

In 1936 Lawrence invited his brother, John, from Yale University’s medical faculty, to Berkeley to cooperate in trials using the cyclotron and its products in medical treatments. The result was huge success, to the extent that John Lawrence is now known as the father of nuclear medicine.

In 1937 Lawrence’s mother was diagnosed with inoperable cancer and given just a few months to live. Ernest and John decided to attack her tumor using an incredibly powerful x-ray machine that Ernest and his team had built and installed at the University of California’s medical school. The result was that his mother was completely cured. She actually went on to outlive Ernest.

Cyclotrons and Cancer Today

In addition to producing radioisotopes for cancer treatments, cyclotrons are still in use today producing proton beams, which yield neutron beams, which are used to attack cancers directly.
http://www.famousscientists.org/ernest-lawrence/


Upon witnessing this ‘miracle cure’ the Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg said,

“His cyclotron is to nuclear science what Galileo’s telescope was to astronomy … his buoyant optimism spread to everyone around him and accounted for the attainment of many an ‘impossible’ objective.”

And wouldn't cha know...

National Cancer Act of 1937

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was established through the National Cancer Act of 1937, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its passage represented the culmination of nearly three decades of efforts to formalize the U.S. government’s place in cancer research.

The act created the NCI as an independent research institute within the Public Health Service by merging the Office of Cancer Investigations at Harvard University and a pharmacology division of NIH. The NCI became the federal government’s principal agency for conducting research and training on the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. The NCI was also tasked with assisting and promoting similar research at other public and private institutions, particularly through reviewing and approving grant applications to support promising cancer research. Finally, the act established the National Advisory Cancer Council, now known as the National Cancer Advisory Board. The act represents the first time that Congress provided funding to address a non-communicable disease.
http://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/legislative/history/national-cancer-act-1937


You've got to love the synchronicity of it all. :lol:

According to radiochemistry.org Glenn Seaborg also cured his own mother.

Seaborg’s mother was one of the first to benefit from the use of this radioisotope that her son had discovered. Fatally ill from hyperthyroidism, (a related condition from which her sister died), diagnosis and treatment with 131I led to her complete recovery and a long life. Former President George Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush are some notable people who were successfully treated for Graves' disease, a thyroid disease, with 131I. Radioactive iodine treatment is so successful that it has virtually replaced thyroid surgery.
http://www.radiochemistry.org/nuclearmedicine/radioisotopes/01_isotopes_dt.shtml

With regards to “hyperthyroidism”:

From Radioisotopes to Medical Imaging, History of Nuclear Medicine Written at Berkeley - Jeffery Kahn
September 9, 1996

Numerous advances were recorded during this era of nuclear medicine at the laboratory. People suffering from polycythemia vera, a rare disease characterized by an over-abundance of red blood cells, were treated with doses of radio-pharmaceuticals. It was the first disease to be controlled with radioisotopes. In 1940, a pioneering treatment procedure debuted to treat leukemia. That was also the year in which hyperthyroidism first was diagnosed and treated using Seaborg and Livingood's iodine-131.

Just as Ernest Lawrence's cyclotrons made possible the creation of radioisotopes, these accelerators also made possible the use of beams of neutrons, protons, and heavy ions for the treatment of disease.

Much of the book on radiation safety was written here. [ <_< ]

The Lab's Will Siri literally wrote the first textbook on the safe application of radioisotopes in biology and medicine. From 1945 to 1979, researchers developed and refined a model of the effects of inhaled radioactive particulates. Researchers here have been instrumental in promulgating guidelines that define the radiation limits of space travel. These findings have important implications for future interplanetary space travel by humans.
http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/nuclear-med-history.html


I’ll stop here for now.

P.S.

Thank you, Apache! :)

P.P.S.

Long-winded enough for ya, Simon? :P
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby Apache on March 8th, 2016, 9:15 am

Thanks IC. I didn't know any of this. Fascinating reading.

The following information is for the UK only:

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health- ... ading-Zero

Around 8 in 10 uterine cancer patients receive major surgical resection as part of their cancer treatment.


In other words, in 80% of cases they cut the tumour out first and then "treat" it with "radiation", which apparently was not the case for Seaborg's mother unless they left that bit out. They also write as if radiation treatment is magical, when it has a long list of horrendous side effects that go with it. I have tried to find the figures for how many women undergo radiation treatment in the UK and then subsequently die from their "treatment" but I have failed to do so.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212694/

Surgery, consisting of total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH-BSO), is the primary treatment.


Buried on the page is this:

mild adverse effects were recorded in 26% of EBRT patients in the PORTEC-1 trial, predominantly gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity


Nice of them to call gastrointestinal toxicity a "mild adverse effect".
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: Radiation: the truth, the lies, the fear

Postby ICfreely on March 9th, 2016, 11:07 pm

Apache wrote:They also write as if radiation treatment is magical...


Math-a-magical is more like it.

Evolution of cancer treatments: Radiation

In 1896 a German physics professor, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, presented a remarkable lecture entitled “Concerning a New Kind of Ray.” Roentgen called it the “X-ray”, with “x” being the algebraic symbol for an unknown quantity. There was immediate worldwide excitement. Within months, systems were being devised to use x-rays for diagnosis, and within 3 years radiation was used in to treat cancer.

In 1901 Roentgen received the first Nobel Prize awarded in physics. Radiation therapy began with radium and with relatively low-voltage diagnostic machines. In France, a major breakthrough took place when it was discovered that daily doses of radiation over several weeks greatly improved the patient’s chance for a cure. The methods and the machines that deliver radiation therapy have steadily improved since then.

At the beginning of the 20th century, shortly after radiation began to be used for diagnosis and therapy, it was discovered that radiation could cause cancer as well as cure it. Many early radiologists used the skin of their arms to test the strength of radiation from their radiotherapy machines, looking for a dose that would produce a pink reaction (erythema) which looked like sunburn. They called this the “erythema dose,” and this was considered an estimate of the proper daily fraction of radiation. It’s no surprise that many of them developed leukemia from regularly exposing themselves to radiation.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-cancer-treatment-radiation


Apache wrote:
I have tried to find the figures for how many women undergo radiation treatment in the UK and then subsequently die from their "treatment" but I have failed to do so.


The Untreated Live Longer
By FACT

For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer. Latest findings reveal all conventional medical treatment for cancer is virtually worthless.

The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the life span of cancer patients, and had concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), and in many cases they live longer. Dr. Jones delivered his bombshell report at the American Cancer Society's (11th) Science Writers' Seminar (March 28-April 2, 1969), in which he confirmed what he had written as early as 1955, in his classic paper. "Demographic Consideration of the Cancer Problem," published in Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Series II, Vol. 18, pp. 298-333).

In his 1955 paper, Dr. Jones demonstrates how cancer studies are manipulated (he politely calls them "bases" and "errors") in order to make it appear that the treated cancer patients live longer than the untreated. Referring to one particular study on breast cancer, he says: "Cases that died during treatment, or closely following treatment, were discarded because of the possible effect of the severity of treatment." (p. 316).

In 1969, before the American Cancer Society's Science Writers' Seminar, Dr. Jones pointed out that the failure of past survival studies were that they did not take into account that the worst, inoperable cases were left in the groups that were untreated. Thus many cancer studies were based on research done with operable and "healthier" cases, giving the mistaken judgment that surgery and radiation were of value in cancer treatment. When Jones corrected for such bias statistically he found that the life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer were greater than that of the treated cases. Dr. Jones concluded that "evidence for benefit from cancer therapy has depended on systematic biometric errors."

After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found, for example, that survival in breast cancer is 4 times longer without conventional treatment. he stated, "People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived an average of only 3 years. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good." (The Naked Empress, Hans Reusch, p. 74)

It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones' work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.

Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon when, in its February 2, 1979 issue, it published an article on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that:

1. Radical mastectomy was no better than simple lump removal.
2. Breast cancer was diagnosed twice as frequently in 1975 as in 1935. The death rate was also double, showing no progress had been made.
3. Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.
4. Early detection meant accelerated treatment and early death.

ADDENDUM

In the September 18, 1984 New York Times and in an article in the September issue of Science '84, Dr. Hayden Bush, director of a regional cancer center in Ontario, Canada, made the following points (paraphrasing):

There is no real advance in cancer treatments. If there was, we'd see an improvement in mortality rates. What has happened is that there is now an emphasis in early diagnosis which starts the "survival clock" sooner. So that even with no real change in survival duration there would be an apparent improvement in survival rates by starting the clock at an earlier time due to early diagnosis.

Dr. John Baylor, an official of the National Cancer Institute, ra Harvard bio-statistician, and a consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, said on the Today show in December 1984:

A lot of early lesions that are not cancer at all are being counted as cancer through these early detection methods. These people will go on to lead a normal life anyway the lesions will clear up by themselves. But they include these cases as cancer thus polluting the pool of real cancer patients and making it seem that survival rates have risen.

http://www.rethinkingcancer.org/resources/magazine-articles/8_11-12/the-untreated-live-longer.php
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Next

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests