in Search

Adverse Reactions

Their industry is cancer

How much do industry groups and their hired ‘experts’ hide from us the carcinogenic effects of their products and services? 

 

We know the way the tobacco industry twisted and turned for years before finally having to admit that cigarettes cause cancer.  But there are plenty of other industries, too, that seem to be playing fast and loose with the truth – even though it means that many thousands of us die every year from a cancer caused by our environment or from industrial or electro-pollution.

 

We know this because Dr Devra Davis, formerly with the US National Institute of Health, has finally blown the whistle on industries that deliberately mislead, confuse or blatantly lie to us about cancer.  She wanted to tell all back in 1990 but her bosses warned her off, citing the example of Willhelm Hueper, who was forced out of the National Cancer Institute in the 1940s when he spoke out about the environmental causes of cancer.

 

As she says of her years at the NIH: “I watched the maturing of the science of doubt promotion – the concerted and well-funded effort to identify, magnify, and exaggerate doubts about what we could say that we know as a way of delaying actions to change the way the world operates.”

 

Their tactics are well known.  They employ ‘experts’ whose task it is to stop genuine research and debate, and she mentions Sir Richard Doll as one example.  Doll had concluded in the 1960s that medical x-rays were harmless, and yet they were stopped for pre-natal evaluation only 20 years later.  He also supported the pro-fluoridation movement, and he confirmed the view that there was no link to cancer.  However, he had miscalculated, and there was a correlation.

 

Similarly, poorly conducted trials are often touted as ‘proof’ that a service or product is safe.  Just such a tactic was carried out on behalf of the mobile phone industry, which surveyed the cancer risk on 421,000 cell-phone users.  The survey concluded there was no risk of brain tumour, and it made newspaper headlines around the world.  But the study was a short-term review – often, brain tumours do not appear for at least 10 years – it also featured infrequent as well as frequent users, thus muddying the results, and it didn’t include any business people at all, probably the most intensive users.

 

It all leaves a nasty taste.  While it’s every industry’s right to make a profit, should it be done when it risks the health of the general population?  And, when they know the truth, isn’t it their obligation to share it with us all?  Or is this yet another example of profits before people.

 

Source:  The Secret History of the War on Cancer (Basic Books, New York, 2007. ISBN 978 0 465 015665) by Devra Davis.    

Published 23 May 2008 13:05 by Bryan Hubbard

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Colonist said:

What I find fascinating is when an Industry does divulge risks to health the governments will sit back and do nothing. Re: Chantix.

May 23, 2008 14:19
 

Kathryn said:

Money & profit will always be more important than the truth to the greedy, powerful heads of corporations.  It's very sad.

May 27, 2008 14:48
 

Jo Wilson said:

I agree with Kathryn - but only so long as we, the people, sit back and do nothing.  The Wellness Revolution isn't called that for nothing.  It's time we all stood up and spoke out.  We need to let our governments know, loud and clear, that we're onto them and industry, and that we simply won't take it any more!

May 28, 2008 00:11
 

Pat Davis said:

The biggest scandal of all is the Aluminium Industry and the end result of drip sdrip absorption of every form of the toxic metal from Alum used to treat water supplies to hidden Aluminium fans and elements in electrical cooking appliances never mind foil dishes and food manufacturing plants

Cancer /Alzheimers/crohns disease and a host of other diseases are simply the end result of a toxic body

May 28, 2008 16:07
 

adelaide said:

I am interested in the above debate as unfortunately I am a cancer patient, or was a cancer patient.  I had surgery to remove the tumour in the colon 2005 and was given misleading advice about my chances of a full recovery, I was told I had a 95% of a complete cure. I thought this was erroneous as I felt I had a herditary condition but I was scoffed at by the oncologist when I discussed this.  It turned out I was right.  Less than a year later the cancer had returned. I was told I must have chemotherapy, radiation and more radical surgery. After much thought I refused this treatment and have refused it again last September. I have done what the eminent oncologists thought impossible: shrunk the lesions using no conventional treatment. I was referred to the CAAT treatment by friends who are bio physicists and working on the metabolism of cancer cells. Specifically in glycolysis.  I have treated this genetically occuring cancer with diet and the results have been incredible so far. My MRI scans which are done at a leading cancer hospital in the UK, prove the lesions starting shrinking as soon I went on the treatment and the colonoscopies showed dramatic improvement of the inside of the colon about 5 weeks after i commenced it.  Five months after starting the CAAT diet the 3 cm nodule sticking out the side of the colon was no longer visible on the scan.

I was a nurse for years and saw how people suffered from chemotherapy. Lets face it, it is a primitive premise: to bomb the body with toxic substances and hope that the "collateral damage" is not too severe.  If people were cured by chemotherapy there would be no deaths from cancer.

However, chemotherapy causes unbearable suffering: it causes starvation, emaciation, intractable pain, vomiting, diarhoea,  hair loss, infertility to name just a few symptoms. It is barbaric to give people such toxic drugs especially when the cancer has spread and invaded many of the internal organs. It makes a person's suffer more in the last months of their life and deprives them of being prepare for their death or spend any precious time with their family.  

I met with a scientist recently who is developing a vaccine for certain cancers and she herself said that the drug companies were the biggest obstacle in getting funding for the next stage of the development of the vaccine. She cannot get funding from the government but has to pander to drug companies to try and support the trials, she does feel they don't want a cure for cancer as they have too much invested in the current drugs.

I am living proof that cleverer, more intelligent treatments are available and my treatment involved no sickness, no nausea, no side effects at all except some hunger now and again. New and innnovative cancer treatments that look at interfering with the synthesis of cancer DNA or interference with glycolysis as mine did through diet, are the way of the future. Bombarding a body with toxins is a treatment that has its roots in medieval thinking.

July 11, 2008 00:45

July 11, 2008 00:51

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

This Blog

Syndication

News

FREE REPORT: Discover 100 ways to live to be 100 This special report includes 100 great tips to help you live longer and healthier – right up to the age of 100. This report is available for download right now – and it’s free. Click here to claim your copy.
Terms and conditions | Advertise | About us | Contact us

(C) 2006 Copyright Conatus plc. All Rights Reserved.