In this piece, after a brief introduction, i will first examine the cancer statistics and evaluate the evidence on conventional allopathic medicine’s safety and efficiency (Section A). Thereafter, i will follow up with a short analysis of conventional oncology’s limits as well as conventional allopathic medicine’s deficiencies in terms of risks, dangers, inefficiency and costs (Section B). In a last section, i will briefly examine health frauds and corruption that have been pervasive in this type of medicine which thrives on scientific reductionism, pseudo-science an corporate bribery to bribed elected law-makers and politicians (Section C).
Text under construction
First, the hard facts about conventional medicine and allopathic oncology.
1. 400,00 nosocomial deaths in the US per year, patient dieing from infection contracted in hospitals ( ).
2. Close to 200,000 dieing from prescription drugs, even when they are correctly used. ( )
3. Over one million American are dieing from the standard american diet the American Academy of Nutrition has been promoting. ( )
4. Close to one million Americans dieing per year from cardiovascular problems…totally avoidable
5. 600 to 700, 000 American Dieing needless from cancer.
6. Chemo 3 percent…
Cancer Statistics and the Iatrogenic and Nosocomial Deaths of the allopathic medical system
For 2017, the expected American cancer collective diagnoses is expected to rise to 1,688780. (1) About 600,920 Americans are expected to die of cancer in 2017, which translates to about 1,650 people per day (Table 1 below). (Source)
According to the World Health Organization’s IARC in Lyons France the number of new cancer cases is expected to reach 2.09 million Amerians by 2025 while the cancer death toll has been extrapolated to be a little over 850,000.
“In the United States, the number of new cancer cases is expected to reach 2.09 million annually from the 1.6 million reported in 2012. Cancer-related deaths are expected to climb from 617,229 in 2012 to 851,396 in 2025″. (2)
It would be disengenious to mimic certain alternative medicine cancer websites by claiming that conventional oncology is a complete fraud and a total failure. (3) While there are serious structural societal problems with conventional cancer research, mainstream clinical oncology practice, the legal standards of care and public health laws, see ebook (4) the country has registered some improvement over the years, including significant improvement with the liquid cancers. (5) First off, there are today more than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer who were on January 1, 2016. (6) Many of these cancer survivors have been determined to be free from cancer. (7)
To measure progress against cancer, let’s look at the cancer death rates trends. While the overall cancer death rate rose during most of the 20th century, peaking in 1991 at 215 cancer deaths per 100,000 persons, according to the ACS, as of 2014, the rate had dropped to 161 per 100,000. (8) This constitutes a significant decline of 25 percent. Which means that there are more than 2.1 million fewer cancer deaths over the past two decades. (9). To the relatively high success rates for the liquid cancers, there has been a non negligeable decline in death rates for the four most common cancer types, lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. See charts below.
What Percentage of People Survive up to Five years ?
According to the official figures, over the past three decades, the 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined increased 20 percentage points among whites and 24 percentage points among blacks. (10). The overall 5 years cancer survival has been officially estimated at 67 percent. While the Lifetime Risk of Developing Cancer was estimated to be approximately 38.5 percent of men and women, who will be diagnosed with cancer of any site at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data. (11) (Source)
Conventional Allopathic Medicine’s Successes and Failures
Analysis: All in all, the Data shows that Conventional Oncology is still unadapted to the People’s needs and partially inconsistent with Science
Although there have been progress, for close to 40 percent of all Americans to be expected to get a cancer diagnosis during his or her lifetime is both costly and un-necessary. I’m jotting down just a few reasons why cancer research and oncological clinical practice are not as successful as they should be.
The Conventional Cancer Model is partially Flawed
According to the conventional cancer establishment experts, cancer is seen less as an immune and homeostasis dysfunction than as a disease characterized by the uncontrolled spread of tumors and abnormal cells. Futhermore, cancer patients have no control over “internal facts such as inhereited genetic mutations, hormones and immune conditions”.
“Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. If the spread is not controlled, it can result in death. Although the reason for many cancers, particularly those that occur during childhood, remains unknown, established cancer causes include lifestyle (external) factors, such as tobacco use and excess body weight, and non-modifiable (internal) factors, such as inherited genetic mutations, hormones, and immune conditions. These risk factors may act simultaneously or in sequence to initiate and/or promote cancer growth”. (12) (Source)
From the holistic oncology and Science perspective, cancer is a systemic and metabolic disease that first and foremost affects the immune system. Furthermore, holistic medicine has clearly shown that cancer genes (called oncogenes) are not only downstream, but can be modifiable via epigenetic change and lifestyle. (See blog) And if anything, holistic medicine can help the patient to take charge of both his-her hormones and immune system, these functions are not “non-modifiable” as claims the Conventional cancer establishment’s experts.
By conditioning the patient to believe that she or he needs to docilely accept aggressive symptomatic treatment, many succumb, not only for the “nocebo” traumatizing verdict, but also from hospital harm:
“….the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year.(….). Conclusions: The epidemic of patient harm in hospitals must be taken more seriously if it is to be curtailed”. (13)
Illustrations of a few of Conventional Oncology’s Harmful Resultst that have led to millions of Harmed Cancer Patients, the majority of them dieing prematurely because of Conventional Oncology’s Health Frauds and Pseudo-Science
Professor Colin goes beyond a genes analysis with regard to cancer Development. (See also the Institute’s interview of Professor Seyfriend
Flawed detection and diagnoses Methods that led to over one Million harmed Americans
On the detection and diagnosis front, the data shows that both late detection issues and un-necessary cancer diagnoses and treatments have led to over one million Americans getting un-necessary harmful and cancer-causing conventional treatments.
For example, PSA (prostate-specific antigen) tested men diagnosed with prostate cancer are 47 times more likely to get unnecessary biopsies, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy than they are to extend their lives. (14)
In addition, most prostate cancers are benign and indolent and would not metastasize if left alone. We have known this for over ten years, and couple of years ago, an an urology cancer symposium in Paris, this “news” went viral.
“Early detection of prostate cancer is associated with the diagnosis of a considerable proportion of cancers that are indolent, and that will hardly ever become symptomatic during lifetime. Such overdiagnosis should be avoided in all forms of screening because of potential adverse psychological and somatic side effects. The main threat of overdiagnosis is overtreatment of indolent disease”
Futhermore, most of these malignancies would resolve if holistic oncology was applied. (See blog).
After lung cancer, prostate cancer is the deadliest malignancy among American men. After over-diagnosing, mis-diagnosing and nocebo-zapping hundreds of thousands of Americans with these flawed detection and diagnostic conventional techniques, just about all of these patients, like sheep in a herd, get blasted with ionic radiation and chemo with aggressive and maiming “side effects” (an euphemism for toxic effects), most of which will promote disability, including erectile dysfunction, and recurrence. This approach is quite efficient as a cash-flow business model, but remains unsafe and inefficient as a healing procedure.
As for women, a recent published study showed that half of mastectomies (removal of breasts) for breast cancer diagnosis were un-necessary. (Source)
And for each woman whose life is saved by mammography, as many as 33 diagnosed with breast cancer from their mammograms receive unnecessary treatment. Study after study has concluded that most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their lives saved by screening. Instead they are either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed. One study found that, for every 5,000 mammograms given, one life is extended. (15)
“… invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress” (17)
Likewise with other forms of cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ.
“… there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer”. (18)
diagnosed with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) – a condition where non-invasive cancerous cells are contained within the milk ducts of the breast.
Another study talks about chemo pushing among the elderly
All of the young females were being brought up in the same way but the disease developed more often in those whose fathers had the animal fat-based diet.
These females also developed more tumours, more quickly than those sired by males on a vegetable-oil rich diet, the journal Breast Cancer Research reports.
Further tests showed tiny genetic changes in the DNA sperm of the lard-eating males also appeared in the breast tissue of their daughters.
In other words, a male’s diet before conception may have long-lasting consequences on the development of his future offspring.
Importantly, the damage sperm by fatty food is not necessarily permanent. In rats, at least, it can be undone by eating healthily and exercising +2
Importantly, the damage sperm by fatty food is not necessarily permanent. In rats, at least, it can be undone by eating healthily and exercising
Researcher Thomas Ong, of the University of Sao Paulo, only looked at the father-daughter relationship.
However, he says it is possible a fatty diet may put sons at risk of other cancers.
Importantly, the damage sperm by fatty food is not necessarily permanent. In rats, at least, it can be undone by eating healthily and exercising.
Professor Ong said: ‘Risk of chronic diseases, including breast cancer, is accumulated throughout a woman’s lifetime based on her lifestyle, including dietary exposure.
‘What our study shows is that paternal diet also contributes to female offspring breast cancer risk.
‘This suggests a healthier lifestyle by fathers could potentially benefit their future daughters’ health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3707201/Junk-food-loving-fathers-raise-future-daughters-risk-breast-cancer.html#ixzz4slljAlJ3
PUt from desktop…lung cancer chart worse than nothing doing
Over treatment and abuse against Elderly Cancer Patients
Conventional Chemotherapy and Radiation Interventions promote Metastasis
But there’s worse. Not only do chemo and radiation cause cancer via the DNA damage pathway, but they also cause harm to those patients who have a “legitimate” cancer, in that many healthy cells are killed (lining of stomach, immune cells etc) while the progenitor cells (e.g., cancer stem cells) are enhanced. This constitutes bad news because cancer stem cells are by nature metastatic. Furthermore, while these CSCs are initially damaged by radiation, they possess a greater capacity for recovery and regrowth, at which point they become even stronger. A few cases in point.
“Despite improvements in treatment, prostate cancer (PC) remains the second-leading cause of cancer death in men. Radiotherapy is among the first-line treatments for PC, but a significant number of patients relapse. Recent evidence supports the idea that PC is initiated by a subset of cells, termed cancer stem cells (CSCs). CSCs have also been implicated in radioresistance in various malignancies,. (…) These data suggest that, although CSCs are initially damaged by radiation, they possess a greater capacity for recovery and regrowth”. (19) (Source)
In this perspective, a new article titled, “Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells,” published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center reported that radiation treatment drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy, by over 30 times. Radiotherapy does this by increasing the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor. (20)
In this another published study, it was shown that chemotherapy transforms the bulk cancer cells to stem cells.
“Cancer stem cells are regarded as the hurdle of cancer therapy at least partially due to their intrinsic resistance to therapy. To this end, chemotherapy is widely used for enrichment of cancer stem cells. (…) Due to the imbalance of the angiogenesis and insufficient blood supply in certain regions of the tumor mass, chemotherapy delivery is compromised in these regions. The insufficient drug delivery in turn transforms the bulk cancer cells to stem cells rather than kill them through NFkappaB-HIF, NFkappaB-Wnt and other signals”. ( )
( ) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756239209001323
Many Oncology Surgeries and biopsies also contribute in Spreading Malignancies
To be developed
Conventional Oncology thrives on Nocebo
Another serious limitation from Conventional Oncology’s experts is Nocebo effect, how a doctor’s negative attitudes and beliefs surrounding a diagnosis can infect the patient with despair and hopelessness, and even conditioning their mind to die when the terminal verdict schedules it.
Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers looked at data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older between 1991-2006 using the country’s health registries in order to determine how the psychological toll of cancer diagnosis impacts the risk for death. After analyzing over 500,000 people who were diagnosed with cancer during that period, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death 26.9 times higher during the first week following diagnosis versus those who were cancer free.
“A large body of evidence suggests high levels of distress and psychiatric symptoms among patients who receive a diagnosis of cancer.1-9 Patients with cancer have been shown to be at increased risk for suicide10-17 and cardiovascular events.18-22 (…) We recently observed that patients with prostate cancer both in Sweden and the United States have increased risks of suicide and cardiovascular events within weeks after their cancer diagnosis.24,25”. ( )
( ) Suicide and Cardiovascular Death after a Cancer Diagnosis
Fang Fang, M.D., Ph.D., Katja Fall, M.D., Ph.D., Murray A. Mittleman, M.D., Dr.P.H., Pär Sparén, Ph.D., Weimin Ye, M.D., Ph.D., Hans-Olov Adami, M.D., Ph.D., and Unnur Valdimarsdóttir, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1310-1318April 5, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110307
Partially finally immune system…but via gene editing and
Stats on Convention med
Same problem Vioxx
One on four…medical bills…burden…s.tress control mice..
Bottom surgery lead to uterine cancer inform consent
Botton HIpp ocath
Other Factors that help to explain these Dismal Results
1. American medicine is manipulative and the Government uses and abuses Medicine to better control the People, this way the political elite stays in power.
United States is the only Western country that allows the drug-medical industry to manipulate the public via media ads. (1) In addition, the private “health-care” industries have been the strongest financial donors to elect the politicians of their choice, those who accept bribes and make favorable laws promoting this type of medicine and outlawing competition that would benefit the People’s health. (2). Confoundng this issue, the monarchical-like constitutionally dubious US Supereme Court (3) has legally allowed these donors to give as much money as they want to the politicians of their choice. And to do this without being obliged to disclose their identity, via convaluded legal and political mechanisms. (4)
In this perspective, the evidence shows that bribed law-makers enact all they can to promote unsafe, poorly efficient and highly expensive drugs and medical procedures that are not in the People’s best interests, (5) including dubious vaccinations, the liability of which has been removed by federal law, which means that it’s the taxpayer who are paying billions of dollars of vaccination harm. (6) Just like with the subprime speculation recession that occured under President Obama a few years ago.
These same law-makers will also legally forbid the use of “alternative medicine” even when the patient is terminal and has no other recourse. (5). Worse, alternative and holistic medicinal techniques that are safe, efficient and cost-friendly not only are not officially investiaged, but have been legally prohibited. (6) This federal repression applies not only for the medical use of cannabis, (a plant that is medically justified by thousands of peer reveiwed publised studies (7)), but also for many other natural molecules that would compete with the allopathic medical system products and services (8). Furthermore, the allopathic medical system (pharmaceutical industry, allopathic conventional hospitals and clinics, schools of medicine, media, government agents) has even contrived an evidentiary normative system called the double blind randomized study as the golden standard by which to keep the Government’s allopathic medical machinery supreme. (9).
I could continue enumerating many other incriminating facts that prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the allopathic medical system is the health fraud this system talks about when it targets alternative medicine (in general, there are exceptions). As the French say, “un chat est un chat” (a cat is a cat). To solve a problem, in this case the People’s health-care crisis, we must first identify the constituent elements of the problem and correctly characterize the issues. History and political science have recorded similar happenings in the past where unscrupulous private business executives have usurped the People’s Government and its three branches with the assisatance of corrupt lackey politicians who then make laws to serve those who have bribed them. And these individuals perpetrate this behavior under the guise of the Constitution. I know how the system works, because of my American litigation and univeristy experience. These are sadly some of the facts that need to kept in mind as we examine the successes and failure of this system. There is nothing really new…Linclon Kellop set
“quote weeks on fasc”
Blog under construction
Conventional Allopathic Medicine’s ideological foundation
19th centureay Lincoln conflicts natural medicine and homeopathic
20th…Flexner report and Rockefeller smear campaign against all forms of natural and holistic medicine
From an analysis of the legal and scientific data that our sister Institute, Holiistic Justice Institute has done (see ebook), it is reasonable to conclude that conventional allopathic medicine is a form of pseudoscientific, symptom-based, chemical, alternative (alternative to holistic medicine’s millennia tradition) medical system that employs an array of practices branded as “safe” and “efficient” when the facts show that most are highly toxic, to hundred of thousands of iatronic and nosocomial deaths each year ( ) and not efficient, if only because the allopathic system thrives on complications, therefore, it’s ideological drive has no interest in getting to the root causes or activating the patient’s natural self repair mechanisms. ( )
This ideology and methods, in particular, it’s double blind placebo method are based on outdated science and on the system’s business model, structured to maximize cash-flow, whatever, in most cases, the ethical ramifcations.
Conventional allopathic doctors and practitioners generally recommend against holistic, naturopathic science, including but not limited to non harmful testing, herbs, nutrition and just about everything that is used holistically, promoting instead toxic and lethal drugs, addictive, vaccinations, surgery and other invasive procedures that has few if any factual merit, thanks to which the client become a life-long one.
While integrative and functional and even traditional chinese medicine, quantum medicine and Ayurveda work with allopathic medicine, Holistic Medicine does not, unless there are compelling reasons that justifies its usage, most of which is found in the patient’s unwillingness or incapacity to take charge holistically of his or her health. Thus in this scenario, it may be better to take a pill or go under the blade, rather than allowing certain health conditions to go awry. (emergency and acture care…each case).
As a result of the above, conventional allopathic medicine is considered by the genuine scientists and experts of the Health Sciences to be by nature harmful, tentative in its effects and unsustainable, way too expensive, to the point of bankrupting the country, as does any addivtive and “evil” habit, from hard gamblling to hard drug intake. raising serious isues about its practice and even legality.
By evil….separate from Source…holist
However, the legal system is also crippled…standards…why fix medicine, we must fix the law.
The People’s Tax-paying efforts are Financing their own Pharmaceutically and Ionic Radiation based Demise, because of which 50 percent of Americans will now get at least one cancer diagnosis in his or her lifetime
Is Today’s Conventional Medical System a Cartel, a Health Fraud, an Organized Crime or a Political i tool to keep the One to Five percent in control of most of the People’s resources by making most of Americans sick, stressed and therefore, politically manipulable ?
The hard evidence does show Conventional Medical Cartel Bought Politician-Lawmakers with hundreds of millions of dollars so that they could draft laws limiting and outlawing integrative and especially holistic medicine, dispense at the expense of tax payers billions of dollars chemo and radiation via medicare and medicaid, the two major sources (cytotoxic chemicals and ionic radiation) to cause cancer.
The bottom line of this assertion is that the Government’s public agent and lawmakers are forcing the People to pay for their own cancer-driven Demise. This is what the evidence exudes.
More on this…with footnotes
Comparing to the collected data from 1975 to 2003, there has been a significant improvement over-all. In 2007, Medscape reiterated the National Cancer Institute’s Stats on this issue.
” Cancer will affect 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in the United States, and the number of new cases of cancer is set to nearly double by the year 2050. Both predictions are based on statistics collected by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)”. (1)
Improvements in 5 years survival appears to reflect improvements in conventional treatments and improvement in the incidence of cancer reflects a cutting down of the tobacco epidemic, combined to some limited lifestyle changes and earlier detection. (2)
(2). According to close to 40 cam…
chemotherapy is the definition of a genotoxic treatment protocol, meaning it damages human DNA. And damaged DNA is a leading cause of cancer, as per the “mutational theory” of cancer that is widely accepted among scientists as the impetus behind cancer’s emergence and spread.
The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient’s immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.
The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16(8):549-60.
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton M.
The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.
System five years…but many die after…
System five years…but many die after…The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
This study was published in the British journal, Clinical Oncology, in December, 2004, entitled, “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-Year Survival in Adult Malignancies.” The authors, one medical oncologist and two radiation oncologists, analyzed the results of all randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. and Australia, that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The trials that were analyzed were performed between 1990 and 2004. The authors’ conclusions were the following:
• Contribution to 5-year survival in Australia was 2.3%
• Contribution to 5-year survival in US was 2.1%
• Median survival in lung cancer has increased by 2 months in the past 20 years
• Overall survival benefit of less than 5% has been achieved in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon, and head and neck cancers.
These results caused significant tumult overseas, but we heard few rumblings in the U.S. Most oncologists that I have interviewed were unaware of the study.
American proponents of chemotherapy argued vehemently that the statistical analysis was incorrect, and that the contribution to 5-year survival was closer to 4% or 5 %. But even 5 percent is not much better than no treatment at all. Which leads on to wonder why chemotherapy is still the legal standard of care.
He reported that the Cancer Council of Australia found that in 2012, with statistics for Australia only:
Complementary and Alternative Medicine was responsible for: 656 Adverse Events 7 Deaths
• Chemotherapy was responsible for 38,337 Adverse Events 1,014 Deaths
The old paradigm is authoritarian and fear-based with insular medicine; whereas, the new paradigm is consultative and hope-based with integrated medicine. He stated that chemotherapy is over-sold and over used while lifestyle is under rated and under used.
web feet aopoptoshttps://cam.cancer.gov/international_affairs/chinese.htm
existent set of genetic programs [atavism].* For instance, there are over 100 oncogenes known to exist within our DNA and are shared by a vast array of different species including the fruit fly, indicating how ancient (at least 600 million years old) and universal they are (found in most multicellular organisms).
Numerous studies confirm that dinosaurs had tumors. These cancer-promoting genes are normally suppressed by more recently evolved genes (Metazoa 2.0), such as tumor-suppressor genes, but when enough damage to the more recently evolved genetic overlay occurs, the system goes into “Safe Mode” and the older genetic pathways (Metazoa 1.0) are activated once more.
inherent in a neo-liberal capitalist system of service and products…
Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of “disease” that will never cause symptoms or death during a patient’s ordinarily expected lifetime. Overdiagnosis is a side effect of screening for early forms of disease. Although screening saves lives in some cases, in others it may turn people into patients unnecessarily and may lead to treatments that do no good and perhaps do harm. Given the tremendous variability that is normal in biology, it is inherent that the more one screens, the more incidental findings will be found. For a large percentage of them, the most appropriate medical response is to recognize them as something that does not require intervention; but determining which action a particular finding warrants (“ignoring”, watchful waiting, or intervention) can be very difficult, whether because the differential diagnosis is uncertain or because the risk ratio is uncertain (risks posed by intervention, namely, adverse events, versus risks posed by not intervening).
Overdiagnosis occurs when a disease is diagnosed correctly, but the diagnosis is irrelevant. A correct diagnosis may be irrelevant because treatment for the disease is not available, not needed, or not wanted. Some people contend that the term “overdiagnosis” is inappropriate, and that “overtreatment” is more representative of the phenomenon.
Because most people who are diagnosed are also treated, it is difficult to assess whether overdiagnosis has occurred in an individual. Overdiagnosis in an individual cannot be determined during life. Overdiagnosis is only certain when an individual remains untreated, never develops symptoms of the disease and dies of something else. Thus most of the inferences about overdiagnosis comes from the study of populations. Rapidly rising rates of testing and disease diagnosis in the setting of stable rates of the feared outcome of the disease (e.g. death) are highly suggestive of overdiagnosis. Most compelling, however, is evidence from a randomized trial of a screening test intended to detect pre-clinical disease. A persistent excess of detected disease in the tested group years after the trial is completed constitutes the best evidence that overdiagnosis has occurred.
Although overdiagnosis is potentially applicable to the diagnosis of any disease, its origin is in cancer screening – the systematic evaluation of asymptomatic patients to detect early forms of cancer. The central harm of cancer screening is overdiagnosis – the detection of abnormalities[disambiguation needed] that meet the pathologic definition of cancer (under the microscope) but will never progress to cause symptoms or death during a patient’s ordinarily expected lifetime.
Active surveillance includes close monitoring of PSA kinetics, repeat biopsies, and treatment initiation when necessary. In men with indolent PCa detected by PSA screening, active surveillance could be a safe treatment option.
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the US, exceeded only by heart disease, and accounts for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths.
Christian Joubert CSO & HMI director
Evidence of Medical Malfeasance and Health Fraud
Testimonial Expert Evidence
Expert Witness: Dr Richard Horton
Evidence of Conficts of Interests, Kickbacks and Corruption between Medical doctors and the Drug Industry
Drexel University confirms that a majority of patients in the United States visited a doctor who received payments from drug companies with 95 percent of them not knowing.
“About 65 percent of those surveyed as a part of the study by Genevieve Pham-Kanter, PhD, an assistant professor in Drexel’s Dornsife School of Public Health, visited a doctor within the last year who had received payments or gifts from pharmaceutical or medical device companies. What’s more: Only 5 percent of those surveyed knew that their doctor had received such payments.” (Source)
The more money doctors receive from drug and medical device companies, the more brand-name drugs they tend to prescribe, a new ProPublica analysis shows. (Source)
Between August 2013 to December 2015 Drug-Pharma producer Genetech, Inc. made payments totaling $727 million to doctors and research hospitals. (Source)
Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.
Dr. Dalbergue (pictured above), a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck, was interviewed in the April 2014 issue of the French magazine Principes de Santé (Health Principles). You can read it here (in French): http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/Juin-2013/Dr-Dalbergue–Gardasil–plus-grand-scandale-de-tous-les-tem.pdf
The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless! Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.
Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it!
Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.
I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.
There is far too much financial interest for these medicines to be withdrawn.
As we have reported in many previous articles here at Health Impact News, the HPV vaccine has become a huge international controversy, while enjoying widespread mainstream media and medical acceptance here in the United States. Any mainstream media reporter who dares to report on the controversy surrounding Gardasil faces ridicule and a potential loss of their career. (Just ask Katie Couric.)
U.S. law prevents anyone from suing Merck or any other vaccine manufacturer as the U.S. Congress gave them total immunity from civil lawsuits in 1986, and that legal protection which gives them a free pass to put as many vaccines into the market as they want to, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. In addition, the National Institute of Health receives royalties from the sales of Gardasil. So don’t expect objective, true information from the U.S. mainstream media, or your U.S. doctor.
But Merck does not have the same legal protection outside the U.S., and it is here we must find information regarding lawsuits over injuries and deaths related to Gardasil.
Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday, shows that “medical errors” in hospitals and other health-care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third-leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.
Martin Makary, a professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led the research, said in an interview that the category includes everything from bad doctors to more systemic issues such as communication breakdowns when patients are handed off from one department to another.
“It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care,” Makary said.
First Do No Harm (1997 – Meryl Streep, Fred Ward) – a very moving true story!
To make the point, here’s a Reuters article from August 1, 2017. More than a third of US adults prescribed opioids in 2015
Starting Point of Awakening to the American Conventional Medical “Holocaust”
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous “To Err Is Human” report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials — and quoted ubiquitously in the media.
In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.
Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.
A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care
James, John T. PhD
Journal of Patient Safety: September 2013 – Volume 9 – Issue 3 – p 122–128
Objectives Based on 1984 data developed from reviews of medical records of patients treated in New York hospitals, the Institute of Medicine estimated that up to 98,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. The basis of this estimate is nearly 3 decades old; herein, an updated estimate is developed from modern studies published from 2008 to 2011.
Methods A literature review identified 4 limited studies that used primarily the Global Trigger Tool to flag specific evidence in medical records, such as medication stop orders or abnormal laboratory results, which point to an adverse event that may have harmed a patient. Ultimately, a physician must concur on the findings of an adverse event and then classify the severity of patient harm.
Results Using a weighted average of the 4 studies, a lower limit of 210,000 deaths per year was associated with preventable harm in hospitals. Given limitations in the search capability of the Global Trigger Tool and the incompleteness of medical records on which the Tool depends, the true number of premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was estimated at more than 400,000 per year. Serious harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.
Conclusions The epidemic of patient harm in hospitals must be taken more seriously if it is to be curtailed. Fully engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients’ voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary to accomplish this goal.
“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”— Sophocles, Antigone”
Revelation 18:23, “… because all the nations were deceived by your pharmakeia”
sorcery (pharmakeia).” A key passage on this topic is found in 2 Thessalonians.
Medical care in the United States is technically complex at the individual provider level, at the system level, and at the national level. The amount of new knowledge generated each year by clinical research that applies directly to patient care can easily overwhelm the individual physician trying to optimize the care of his patients.1 Furthermore, the lack of a well-integrated and comprehensive continuing education system in the health professions is a major contributing factor to knowledge and performance deficiencies at the individual and system level.2 Guidelines for physicians to optimize patient care are quickly out of date and can be biased by those who write the guidelines.3–5 At the system level, hospitals struggle with staffing issues, making suitable technology available for patient care, and executing effective handoffs between shifts and also between inpatient and outpatient care.6 Increased production demands in cost-driven institutions may increase the risk of preventable adverse events (PAEs). The United States trails behind other developed nations in implementing electronic medical records for its citizens.7 Hence, the information a physician needs to optimize care of a patient is often unavailable.
There was much debate after the IOM report about the accuracy of its estimates. In a sense, it does not matter whether the deaths of 100,000, 200,000 or 400,000 Americans each year are associated with PAEs in hospitals. Any of the estimates demands assertive action on the part of providers, legislators, and people who will one day become patients. Yet, the action and progress on patient safety is frustratingly slow; however, one must hope that the present, evidence-based estimate of 400,000+ deaths per year will foster an outcry for overdue changes and increased vigilance in medical care to address the problem of harm to patients who come to a hospital seeking only to be healed.
Back to Top | Article Outline
1. Zilberberg MD. The clinical research enterprise—time to change course? JAMA. 2011; 305: 604–605.
2. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
3. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA. 2009; 301: 429–431.
Cited Here… |
4. Ferket BS, Colkesen EB, Visser JJ, et al. Systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 27–40.
Cited Here… |
5. Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG, et al. Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 577–585.
Cited Here… |
6. Gittell JH. High Performance Healthcare—Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 2009
7. American College of Physicians. Achieving a high performance health care system with universal access: What the United States can learn from other countries. Ann InternMed. 2008; 148: 55–75.
8. Reid RO, Friedberg MW, Adams JL, et al. Associations between physician characteristics and quality of care. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170: 1442–1449.
Cited Here… |
9. Levinson DR. Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm. DHHS, OIG. 2012, OEI-06-09-00091.
10. California Injury Lawyers Blog. Available at: http://www.californiainjurylawyersblog.com/2009/06/california-medical-malpractice-dennis-quaids-twins-to-receive-500000-for-heparin-overdose.html. Accessed July 12, 2012.
11. McKnight EV, Bennington TT. A Never Event—Exposing the Largest Outbreak of Hepatitis C in American Healthcare History. Fremont, NE: History Examined, LLC; 2010
12. Ghandi TK, Zuccotti G, Lee TH. Incomplete care—On the trail of flaws in the system. N Engl J Med. 2011: 365: 486–488.
13. Gheorghaide M, Gattis WA, O’Conner CM. Treatment gaps in the pharmacologic management of heart failure. Rev Cadiovasc Med. 2002; 3: S11–S19.
14. Weismann JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, et al. Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical records reviews: Do patients know something that hospitals do not? Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 100–108.
15. James JT. A Sea of Broken Hearts—Patient Rights in a Dangerous, Profit-Driven Health Care System. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse; 2007.
16. Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Weaver F, et al. Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153: 69–75.
Cited Here… |
The entire medical system seems to be designed around profit. There is the economic kind of profiting, and beyond that there is a profiting through the advancement of darker agendas.
Is there any Merit in the Bible’s characterization of pharmaceutical medicine as Sorcellerie ?
“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”— Sophocles, Antigone”
Revelation 18:23, “… because all the nations were deceived by your pharmakei
Because the majority of politicians who became lawmakers make sure to have a legal system that either outcasts holistic medicine and make it non reimbursable by insurance plans while promoting allopathic drugs and hi-tech procedures and because there is an inverse proportion relationship between costs and efficiency regarding these three forms of cancer medicine, I need to say a word about Biblical versus Satanical Medicine
Since the Start of Biblical recorded History, the pharmaceutical sector of the economy has been called, multiple times, “witch-craft “, “sorcellerie” and “Satanical”.
The words “pharmacy” and “pharmaceutical” are derived from the Greek word, pharmakeia (Strong’s G5331). This word is found in the Bible in the following passages of scripture.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery (pharmakeia), enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21
and the light of a lamp will not shine in you (the great city Babylon) any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations (ethnos) were deceived by your sorcery (pharmakeia). Revelation 18:23
Reference and Precision Notes
(1) This estimate does not include carcinoma in situ (noninvasive cancer) of any site except urinary bladder, nor does it include basal cell or squamous cell skin cancers because these are not required to be reported to cancer registries https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf See also this Source.
(2) (International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2013).
(3). See the Institute’s blog on its critique of both the alternative and conventional cancer worlds.
(5). By liquid cancer, we those cancers that invade white blood cells, like lymphomas, leukemias and multiple myoloma.
(6). Ip Cit www.cancer.org
(13) Journal of Patient Safety: September 2013 – Volume 9 – Issue 3 – p 122–128, page 1.
(14). N Engl J Med 2009;360(13):1320–8).
(15). (Arch Intern Med 2011;17(22):2043–6) (J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;(22):139–43).
(16). Lancet Oncol. 2011 Nov;12(12):1118-24. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70250-9. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study. Zahl PH1, Gøtzsche PC, Mæhlen J.
Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence
Archie Bleyer, M.D., and H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H.
N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1998-2005November 22, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206809
(19). Prostate. 2012 Dec 1;72(16):1746-56. doi: 10.1002/pros.22527. Epub 2012 Apr 18.
Long-term recovery of irradiated prostate cancer increases cancer stem cells.
Cho YM1, Kim YS, Kang MJ, Farrar WL, Hurt EM.
The combination of radiotherapy with a CSC-targeted therapeutic strategy may prevent tumor recurrence. using holistic techniques
(20) Radiation treatment generates therapy-resistant cancer stem cells from less aggressive breast cancer cells
First published: 18 June 2012Full publication history
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27701 View/save citation
Cited by (CrossRef): 0 articles Check for updates Citation tools
(*). Contrarily to a conventional oncologist who practices chemo-radiation-surgery and targeted synthetic patented drug medicine, holistic oncologists are lifestyle coaches who specialize in the knowledge of cancer control and reversal via the immune system, biophysics and metabolic medicine. While they have medical background and cancer expertise, their health -practice is based on non invasive ways to help the patient to be his or her own doctor or healer. In holistic oncology, allopathic prescriptions are most times un-necessary and even deleterious. However, when conventional oncology and allopathic medicine are indicated, then holistic naturopathic oncologists will refer patients to a medical doctor who uses conventional oncology’s standards of care. Although Christian went to a conventional medical school, he refuses to practice this type of medicine. He is therefore not a licensed medical doctor, thanks to which he is not bound to the conventional medical board’s allopathic rules, most of which Christian considers to be either outdated, dogma-based or the result of medical fraud and unethical conflicts of interests. (Source) Thus, he does not conventionally diagnose diseases, nor treat patients with patented drugs, surgery, radiation or the like, if only because synthetic drugs tend to poison the liver. His oncology expertise comes from his clinical experience and his participation in hundreds of medical oncology and health conferences, analyzing thousands of research papers, keeping up to date with both the conventional and the alternative medical litterature, examining dozens of cancer clinics in the world, his court expertise witnessing and helping many diseased people get better. Attempting to contribute in the shifting of outdated medical paradigms, Christian’s approach to medicine is shamanic (i.e., spiritual), legal (based on the rules of evidence) and scientific (hinged on published peer review science), rather than based on corporate greed-like health consumption dogma and biased medicine that does little if anything meaningful to root out chronic health-care problems. While contemporary conventional medicine can be useful for acute and emergency care and a few other fields, in the vast majority of health challenges, it is usually nefarious and counterproductive. Treating basically symptoms may relieve the patient for the short term, but eventually the illness comes back vindictively or gets displaced into another disease. This “old school” paradigm may be a lucrative “business model”, but it tends to remain dangerous, inefficient and expensive. (See some of the evidence via mouse click). On the other hand, holistic medicine helps the patient to be physically, emotionally and spiritually fit, thanks to which his or her “internal doctor” (homeostasis in medicine) gets the body-mind back to tip top shape. By practicing holistic naturopathic oncology, the patient can benefit from holistic savoir-faire, the best scientific tools and the reliable legal skills that will enable him or her to make an informed decision on all health-care and optimal longevity choices. See the Institute’s training holistic oncology workshop for a few additional details.
Chemotherapy is no walk in the park, yet many people subject themselves to its unpleasant effects in hopes of healing their cancer. Unfortunately, it could all be in vain as yet another concerning study has shown that chemotherapy can actually spread the very disease it is intended to stop.
In a study by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, radiation and chemotherapy treatments that kill tumor cells were found to cause cancerous tumors to grow bigger and more prolific. In fact, the dying cancer cells that chemotherapy set into motion actually trigger the inflammation that causes tumors to grow more aggressively.
Senior author and Assistant Professor of Pathology Dr. Dipak Panigraphy said: “In this study we demonstrate that chemotherapy-generated debris from dead and dying tumor cells can stimulate tumor growth, which has pivotal implications for the treatment of cancer patients. Conventional cancer therapy designed to kill tumor cells is inherently a double-edged sword.”
Their findings come on the heels of another study published in Science Translational Medicine last year that found that chemotherapy can cause breast cancer cells to multiply.
A 2013 study into this issue yielded some very worrying findings. Published in Nature, that study also found that chemotherapy promotes the spread and growth of cancer cells by damaging healthy tissue around the tumors, and it took that one step further by finding that it caused cancer cells to develop resistance to chemotherapy as well, essentially turning them into “super” cancer cells. Much like superbugs, these cancer cells are resistant to the most aggressive types of chemotherapy available, making cancer far deadlier than before.
Chemotherapy outcomes worse than getting no treatment at all?
Some experts have pointed out that chemotherapy kills cancer sufferers more quickly than getting no treatment at all. For example, University of California, Berkeley, Medical Physics and Physiology Professor Dr. Hardin B. Jones said his research shows that people who refused chemotherapy treatment for cancer lived 12.5 years on average, while those who get these treatments averaged just three years of life. Essentially, refusing the conventional treatments for cancer causes patients to live four times longer than those who do get on board, on average. His findings were published in the journal Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences.
In fact, the Pharma Death Clock shows that chemotherapy has killed more than 18 million people since the beginning of the year 2000, which is more people than those who have died from wars, suicide and terrorism combined.
Cancer treatment making some people rich while killing others
Yet, as Christina Sarich pointed out in The Waking Times, we continue to spend more than $107 billion per year on cancer treatment. The fact that this figure is projected to reach higher than $150 billion by the year 2020 tells you everything you need to know about the current state of medical cancer treatments.
A cancer diagnosis is devastating for patients and their loved ones, and dealing with all the decisions that must be made can be overwhelming. Many people have found success with natural treatments, whether it’s carrot juice or cannabis oil, but results vary so much depending on the individual that it really is difficult to make heads or tails of all the information out there. One thing we can be sure of, thanks to studies like these, is that chemotherapy is not always the best route to take, and it is well worth exploring other options so you can make the most informed decision about treatment as possible.
Read more news on cancer treatments at Chemo.news.
Newswise — BOSTON – Cancer therapies including radiation and chemotherapy seek to treat the disease by killing tumor cells. Now a team including researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) have shown that the dead and dying cancer cells generated by chemotherapy and targeted cancer therapy paradoxically trigger inflammation that promotes aggressive tumor growth. In a study published today in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, the team has illuminated the mechanism by which tumor cell death can drive primary tumor growth and metastasis. Moreover, the scientists also demonstrated that this unintended consequence of cancer treatment can be halted by resolvins, a family of molecules naturally produced by the human body. The findings represent a novel treatment approach to preventing tumor growth and recurrence.
“In this study we demonstrate that chemotherapy-generated debris from dead and dying tumor cells can stimulate tumor growth, which has pivotal implications for the treatment of cancer patients,” said senior author Dipak Panigrahy, MD, assistant professor of pathology in the Department of Pathology. “Conventional cancer therapy designed to kill tumor cells is inherently a double-edged sword.”
The findings are consistent with clinical observations on radiation-generated debris dating back to the 1950s, but until now, few studies investigated the molecular mechanisms underlying the phenomenon. In these studies, Panigrahy, a scientist at the Cancer Center at BIDMC, and colleagues – including lead author Megan Sulciner of BIDMC, Charles N. Serhan, Ph.D., of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Mark W. Kieran, MD, PhD of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Sui Huang, MD, PhD, of Institute of Systems Biology – injected debris from tumor cells killed by chemotherapy into animal models. Thirteen months later, the tumor cell debris alone had produced no visible tumors. However, when the researchers co-injected tumor cell debris together with as few as 100 living cancer cells that would not have resulted in cancer by themselves, the combination promoted rapid tumor growth.
The researchers’ further analysis revealed that chemotherapy-killed cancer cells promote growth when a lipid molecule exposed on the surface of dead and dying cells triggers the release of cytokines – proteins that regulate the body’s immune and inflammatory response. The resulting “cytokine storm” in the tumor’s microenvironment in turn sets the stage to promote new tumor growth.
“This pro-tumor activity could fuel a positive feedback loop that is difficult to overcome with more aggressive cytotoxic therapy like chemotherapy and radiation,” said Panigrahy. “This may explain the inherent therapeutic limit to cancer treatments available today.”
In another set of experiments, Panigrahy and colleagues attempted to block debris-stimulated tumor growth by introducing a class of anti-inflammatories produced by the human body called resolvins. Discovered by Serhan and colleagues at BWH in 2002, resolvins actively turn off inflammation and stimulate a class of immune cells to digest the tumor debris left in the wake of the cytokine storm. In this study, resolvins suppressed lung and melanoma metastasis in mouse models, the scientists found, and blocked cancer growth in various tumor models including lung, pancreatic, lymphoma, breast, prostate, and melanoma. When the researchers administered chemotherapy and resolvins to a debris-stimulated pancreatic cancer model in mice, the combination resulted in tumor regression.
The findings open the door to a new approach to prevent cancer recurrence as well as treatment by adding resolvins to existing chemotherapy of targeted therapy regimens. Already in clinical development as a potential treatment for other inflammatory disease including eczema, periodontal disease and various neurodegenerative disease, resolvins have proven to be non-toxic and come with minimal side-effects.
In addition to Panigrahy, study authors include co-first authors Megan L. Sulciner and Molly M. Gilligan, both of BIDMC, and co-corresponding author Charles N. Serhan of Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Dayna K. Mudge, Jaimie Chang, Allison Gartung, Kristen A. Lehner, Emily R. Greene, Yael Gus-Brautbar, Julia Piwowarski and Vikas Sukhatme of BIDMC; Diane R. Bielenberg, Birgitta Schmidt, Tadanori Mammoto and David Zurakowski of Boston Children’s Hospital; Mauro Perretti of the William Harvey Research Institute and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London; Arja Kaipainen of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute; co-corresponding Mark W. Kieran of Dana-Farber Institute; and co-corresponding author Sui Huang of the Institute of Systems Biology.
This work was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (RO1 01CA170549-02, ROCA148633-01A4, GM095467); Stop and Shop Pediatric Brain Tumor Fund; CJ Buckley Pediatric Brain Tumor Fund; Alex Lemonade Stand; Molly’s Magic Wand for Pediatric Brain Tumors; Markoff Foundation Art-In-Giving Foundation; Kamen Foundation; Jared Branfman Sunflowers for Life; The Wellcome Trust (program 086867/Z/08). The resolvin E1 receptor (ChemR23) KO mice were kindly provided by Dr. Brian Zabel (supported by NIH R01AI079320) and Prof. Eugene Butcher (supported by CA169354).
About Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is a patient care, teaching and research affiliate of Harvard Medical School and consistently ranks as a national leader among independent hospitals in National Institutes of Health funding.
BIDMC is in the community with Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Milton, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Plymouth, Anna Jaques Hospital, Cambridge Health Alliance, Lawrence General Hospital, MetroWest Medical Center, Signature Healthcare, Beth Israel Deaconess HealthCare, Community Care Alliance and Atrius Health. BIDMC is also clinically affiliated with the Joslin Diabetes Center and Hebrew Rehabilitation Center and is a research partner of Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and the Jackson Laboratory. BIDMC is the official hospital of the Boston Red Sox. For more information, visit www.bidmc.org.
which is the Government’s medicine, meaning those who bought via bribes those who control the Government are able to