[ad_1]
In this article, Mike Anderson shares about his film “Killing Cancer from the Inside” and a shocking look at cancer research. Mike Anderson is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and director / producer of Nutrition and Inside Out Cancer Treatment.
Kevin: OK great. I want to talk a little bit about the second movie, Killing Cancer
from the inside out. “Just seeing this title somehow opens a box of worms. Let’s first talk about where this idea came from.
Mike: The idea is that conventional medicine is always, what I call external medicine … They will come with their tools from outside and apply external means to cure something like cutting out a tumor through surgery or something like that. While you are really treating cancer from the inside out, because cancer means that something is wrong with your body. The tumor is just a symptom of it. Essentially all of your body’s biochemistry is fucked up. And what you need to do is change it. The only way to change this biochemistry and make your body unfriendly to cancer cells is mainly through diet. Of course, attitude, mind and stress, they play a role, but I think it varies individually. I don’t think it’s as important as the diet itself. If you look at the cancer cells themselves, what environment do they like? Acidic environments are low in oxygen because they can survive without oxygen and a whole bunch of other things. This is the kind of environment in which they thrive, and this is the environment that is created by eating the standard American diet. It should come as no surprise that we have such an epidemic of cancer just because most cancers are caused by diet; there is no question about that.
Kevin: Was there a reason to make the film?
Mike: I’ve always wanted to do something about cancer, and this Florida man somehow pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to do it. It turned out to be a lot … Every project, when you entered it, turned out to be a much bigger project than I imagined. The cancer industry itself, I mean, has been criticized for a long time.
If you look, I give statistics at the beginning of the film, this is from a report made by several oncologists in Australia, it looks at clinical trials over a 14-year period, until 2004. What they showed was treatment because all of our major cancers are completely ineffective. What is unique about this study is that they used absolute numbers. This means absolute versus relative numbers. If you take some research in the cancer industry and translate the results into absolute numbers, you will get this sad result. With 00,000 success and 5 years survival for breast, uterus, any type of cervical cancer, whatever cancer you want. Relative numbers mean just that. They are related to something else, like a previous study, and may show improvement. They are not 1 in 100 people.
I tell people, if you are ready for some treatment, you should go to your doctor and say, “How many out of 100 people will benefit from this?” Well, doctor, let’s take tamoxifen, for example. The doctor will say, “Well, if you take tamoxifen for five years, it will reduce your chances of recurrence of breast cancer by 49%.” This is a bald lie. This is a relative number. If you take the absolute number, that’s only 1.6 people out of 100, instead of having a good impression, 49 people out of 100 will benefit from that. But that’s only 1.6 and that’s what the patient needs to know. This can happen by accident, it’s so low. It could be a placebo effect, it’s so low.
All of them, for our major cancers, they are all below 10%, well below 10% in terms of effectiveness. But what the cancer industry has done is use relative statistics. If you go to the facts and figures of the American Cancer Society, you will see that each number has “Relatives” in front of it, and this is a great mystery. Relative to what? It may be a previous study. This is a manipulated number and is completely untrue.
As with tamoxifen, they show that this drug is almost 50 times more effective than it actually is. And that impresses patients. People who know these statistics will say that the patient should never be given relative numbers because he does not understand them; they are for statisticians. Well, it’s not just patients, it’s oncologists. Since shooting the film, I’ve talked to half a dozen oncologists who don’t even know the difference between relative and absolute numbers. They just read the medication leaflets and connect the numbers to the patients and say, “Oh, that sounds pretty good. Okay, let’s do it.” They have no idea. I think this is a scam. I mean, especially if the oncologist knows about it
and it represents 49% effective treatment, when in fact it is only 1.6% effective. This is simply wrong.
I wouldn’t do that. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do that. I mean, you better take a placebo and a beer instead of taking this medicine. But this is true in general, incredibly ineffective.
I watched the ABC Morning Show and this Nancy Schneiderman was there and they said that breast cancer at an early stage had a 91% cure, right, in 5 years. Well, that’s just nonsense. You can’t do anything and have the same statistics. There is absolutely nothing you can do about breast cancer and have the same statistics. In fact, it should be higher because breast cancer is a very slow-growing cancer and you should get it easily if it is early stage cancer. But they manipulate numbers, make treatments seem much more effective than they really are, because it involves a lot of money, a lot of money. If you translate all the numbers into absolute numbers, the cancer industry will be out of business. These are the numbers that are presented to Congress. These are the numbers they present to Congress to get more funding. They are completely manipulated and no one knows about it. So anyway, I can’t even remember the original question.
Kevin: That was amazing. So, let’s just look at the numbers here for people who may not yet be as understanding in math, which I am not, but let’s see if I understand correctly. For example, say that something worked for 1 in 100 people. If they find something in the study that works for 2 out of 100 people, that would be a 100% increase, right?
Mike: Exactly.
Kevin: GOOD.
Mike: correct.
Kevin: So they could say that whatever it was, the new study improved the success rate by 100%.
Mike: Exactly, exactly. And you can do like mammograms, which is a big scam;
you take two groups, say a quarter of a million people in each group. This is not a lie, because that’s how it works. People who have had regular mammograms say three people have had breast cancer who have had regular mammograms. Let’s say four people got breast cancer from those who didn’t have mammograms. Well, instead of looking at a population of 225,000 in each group, they take the difference between three and four people and say it’s a 25% reduction in breast cancer due to mammography.
Kevin: Go.
Mike: In fact, if you take a full million people or half a million people, three
people with the mammography group and four got breast cancer with the non-mammography group, that’s nothing. That’s only .000000000. But they say 25% reduction in breast cancer due to mammograms. This is just a bald lie. There has been a lot published about it, but you will never see it in the mass news. It just won’t.
Kevin: Wow, when you hear a 25% discount, I mean it’s 1 in 4.
Mike: Yes, that’s impressive. I go into the movie and say I can’t remember the exact numbers, but they are real. You have to say, “What are the real benefits of mammograms?” Well, a woman in her 40s who receives regular mammograms will live another nine days. A woman in her 50s, she will live like 7 extra days. A woman in her 60s will live another five days.
Something like that; it’s in the movie. So you watch this and throw away everything about these relative statistics and then you go and say, “Well, what’s the use? It should prolong my life.” There are no benefits at all.
Kevin: What was it like talking to oncologists?
Mike: They were hostile. They make a living from it. I tell you, they love the first part, except for the statistical part. This is the part they didn’t like because they really didn’t understand it. These are the people who use these ineffective drugs. I mean, I had a man … Hodgkin is their claim to fame. The American Cancer Society will say in its book of facts and figures that it has an 85% cure rate.
Well, that’s nonsense. This is a relative statistic. If you look at the absolute figure, it is about 40%. It’s even worse than that, but they don’t understand it. They will tell their patients, “Yes, there is an 85% cure.” Well, they think that 85 out of 100 people will be cured of that. While in fact they are 40 and this is their best. Hodgkin is their best treatment. But what they are not saying is that this is a five-year cure rate. What happens in five years? Well, the treatment begins to decline sharply with Hodgkin’s disease and other diseases, lymphomas, where they have, their leukemia, where they have quite a success with childhood leukemia. But what happens is that over time the cancers come back, they get other problems due to the treatment. They have liver disease, they can die of liver failure and all sorts of other things beyond that five-year period. And that really twists it down.
[ad_2]
Source by Kevin Gianni