The cancer business is a billion dollar industry
In the meantime the number of people who earn their living from cancer patients, is greater than the number of cancer patients themselves. It is easy enough to imagine that companies that annually earn hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer medications, mammography devices, laboratory examinations, and radiation devices, will do everything they can to satisfy their shareholders. What this struggle looks like we experience again and again. Have you ever wondered that a government minister of health supports cigarette advertising (Germany) or why it is illegal to sell a vitamin C tablet containing more than 250 mg of vitamin C in a supermarket, even though 80% proof alcohol is for sale next to the cigarettes. An even greater problem is caused by a few criminals who are responsible for the fact that thousands must not only suffer, they also must die. I would like to cite the example of Professor Herrmann to show the dimensions of this problem.
In 1997, at 47 years of age Professor Herrmann was still considered to be the shooting star of German cancer research, at least that is how he was described by the news magazine Focus. As student of the “leading” German gene authority Professor Mertelsmann, he received cancer research projects from German Cancer Aid, the Thyssen Foundation, or the German Research Foundation. He won seven research prizes, he was an authority, a member in many scholarly associations and spokesman of German gene therapists.
But in the middle of March 1997, the image of this professor of the medical faculty in Ulm started to crumble. Professor Hofschneider from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Munich, and Mr. Bertram from the Institute for Human Genetic Engineering at the University of Heidelberg, indicated in a letter to the medical faculty, that Professor Herrman and his assistant and companion Prof. Brach had falsified cancer research.
To make a long story short – it was revealed that Professor Herrmann and Professor Brach had falsified at least 50 research results. Interestingly enough 28 of these were in Freiburg where Professor Mertelsmann was active, and seven other “scientists” from Freiburg were co-authors of 32 of the studies. In other words, most of the major cancer research studies in Germany had been falsified. I am writing this in detail so that you really understand how “scientifically” things are approached in conventional oncology.
Now one would assume that Professor Herrmann and Professor Brach have been incarcerated, and in addition that they must repay millions in research funding. Not be a long shot. Neither of them even lost their appointment (position), and neither has spent a single day in prison. Cancer medications are approved based on such research; and these medications are then administered to thousands of cancer patients. Have you ever seen a list citing which medications have been tested and which approvals have been withdrawn? I have not!
While tax evaders are immediately incarcerated on suspi-cion, falsifiers never see the inside of a prison. You can see with this example, that the chance that you will be given a medication that has been approved on the basis of false research results, is much greater than is frequently assumed. Even if your doctor means well, how does he really know, that the statistics have not been produced by such criminals? And have you ever wondered why Professor Herrmann never went to prison – isn’t he responsible for the death of many cancer patients? How was it possible that no one caught on to Professor Herrmann for years. Who was responsible within the German Cancer Aid organization for seeing how the funds were used? The original text of the Task Force F.H. that was responsible for the investigations stated. “In the publications flawed by falsification, listed here and in concrete publica-tions suspected of falsification, the funding institutes cited are the German Research Foundation in 41 instances, the German Cancer Aid/Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation in 43 instances, and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in 12 instances. Additional funding institutions are also listed. In total 14 of the works listed here have already been withdrawn (as of January 3rd 2000). In the case of 5 publications some of the authors withdrew their own names from the publication (as of Jan 3rd 2000).”
I find it extremely interesting that of all organizations German Cancer Aid was the one that most frequently financed the studies of Professor Herrmann. Naturally any thinking person would now immediately ask the following questions: Did German Cancer Aid cover for Professor Herrmann for years, because his study results were counter to the German Cancer Aid strategy, or did German Cancer Aid pay many people’s charitable contributions to Prof. Herrmann for years, without ever examining the results of the studies in more detail? Honestly at this point I do not know which of these alternatives would be worse.
If you survey the German Cancer Aid’s official member-ship list you will find an abundance of professorial titles and political names. However for years not one of these professors or politicians noticed (officially) what was going on here. I do not want to say anymore about the role of the German Cancer Aid in this book. However you can order their “blue booklets” free of charge at: Deutsche Krebshilfe, Thomas-Mann-Str. 40, 53111 Bonn, Germany – and then determine for yourself whether the content of these books will help you along your path.
Certainly Professor Herrman and Professor Brach were not the only people that were indicted by the Task Force F.H., for manipulating research results. Thus you can read in the concluding report: “The Task Force investigated 170 joint publications (publications in journals and book articles) by Professors Mertelsamnn and Herrmann. Of these, 58 studies showed indications of data manipulation, where Mr. Mertelsmann took the position of last author in 15 of these publications, which normally indicates special responsibility for the publication. In our opinion it contradicts every aspect of reality to assume that a person whose professional activity over a long period was so closely associated with that of another person, did not notice that this procedure or that procedure was incorrect.” In December 2001 Professor Mertelsmann (University of Freiburg) was pronounced inno-cent by the court. I have no comment on this.
However other professors were mentioned, for instance Professor Lindemann: “Professor Herrmann co-authored 53 of the 129 journal publications. Of these 53 publications 27 are on the list of the incriminated publications, 6 of them with his first authorship. Also of 25 book contributions 4 are on this list. In addition, several falsified illustrations were found in the professorial dissertation (see Appendix 18). These accusations resulted in the retraction of the professorial dissertation.
…. In our view it remains for the record that Mr. Lindemann disqualified himself as scientist. ….. Even for his professorial dissertation Mr. Lindemann did not want to assume any sustainable responsibility; rather he attempted to withdraw the work after revelation of the apparent data manipulation contained therein, and to submit a new cumulative work, which referred exclusively to “Herrmann-independent” work. To this day this appears to us as an unusual process, when after the accusations are made known a new, “cleaner” work is submit-ted and it is submitted in a simultaneous exchange for the work flawed by falsification. Mr. Lindemann did not consider it necessary to lay down his position as professor due to these revelations, which he apparently obtained with work that was flawed with falsification.
On the following pages I could list more professors from the oncology field whose manipulations have been “uncovered”. However my primary objective is to demonstrate to you how high the probability is that you will be prescribed chemotherapies or other conventional cancer therapies, that are only prescribed because money-hungry, egocentric, and power-hungry doctors, simply stated are walking over corpses. But the biggest scandal for me is how the German judicial system (and not only the German judicial system) deals with these results. Not a single doctor went to prison after this scandal.
If you still believe that your chemotherapy or cyto injection is only prescribed because it has helped so many people in recent years – then you will not be helped if you keep reading this book.
More than one fourth of scientists surveyed by the American Association the Advancement of Science admitted that they have personally come into contact with at least 2 cases of research where they suspected falsification or plagiarism in the last decade. In this regard I think of Dr. Poisson from St. Luc Hospital in Montreal/Canada, who falsified the data about the tumor size of his patients.
Or think of the scandal involving Professor Hübener from the University Hospital Eppendorf (UKE) in Hamburg. Hundreds of patients were radiated with a dose, which the courts later said patients died of through the irradiation. The expert report for patients with intestinal cancer said: “A total of 51 patients suffered severe side effects from EORTC/RTOG level >= 3 (51/83 = 81%). An actuarial analysis according to Kaplan-Meier projected a side effect rate of 85% after 5 years and 93% after 10 years. In total at the time of the analysis 20 patients were living (20/63=32%). 43 patients are dead, 23 primarily to tumor ailments, 11 primarily due to long-term effects, and 9 due to the causes/illnesses.” Later the 11% was projected as 20%. Now let’s take a good look at what has never been discussed in public to this day. Here is the comment of Professor Trott, University of London, in the expert report dated July 7 th 1993 concerning patient S. who was irradiated according to the Hübener sandwich method: “In conclusion I have determined that according to the present state of radiology-biological knowledge in 1987 the combination of pre-operative irradiation with 4 times 5 Gy, and post-operative irradiation with 15 times 2 Gy (2.4 Gy), lead to a non-tolerated overdose in the target volumes, which resulted an unjustfiably high risk of chronic radiation sequelae for the pelvic organs.”
In total the Professor Hübener’s patients received a total dose of 50-55 Gy. This however is an absolutely normal quantity, which is actually at the lower end of the scale in today’s cancer therapies, where standard irradiations are often 30-35 times 2 Gy. Because this point was unassailable the 4 x 5 Gy was taken up and was considered to be the culprit for the dilemma (plus the questionable sandwich therapy, i.e. irradiation prior to, and after the operation).
This tactic was used to avoid a larger discussion, namely a discussion of how effective irradation really is for certain types of cancer. I really have no interest in relieving Professor Hübener of his guilt, but in the numerous expert reports many “colleagues” go easy on themselves by placing all the blame on Professor Hübener’s sandwich therapy. On any given day these same colleagues often prescribe a much higher dose than did Professor Hübener and feel that they are justified in so doing as long as the individual dose remains under 2.5 Gy. But we have known for a long time that exposure doses accu-mulate and do not solely dependent on an increased individual dose.
Don’t these doctors ever ask themselves whether many patients die of the therapy and where to draw the limit. Is it 50 Gy, 70 Gy, or 100 Gy? And regardless of the number that is cited here, the next logical question is: “How do you know that this number is correct?”