Time to end the endless war on cancer
The birth of the war on cancer was with President Nixon in 1971 when he declared war on the disease we all know as cancer. I found it interesting that a government declared war on disease. To be Honest, a disease that the same government helps to contribute to. More on that below.
It is no surprise that this war has mirrored the endless wars of the 20th century that have extended well into the 21st century. Everything is war. War is the answer to any conflict. War is even the answer for disease. Interestingly, it is only cancer that we went to war with, not cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.
Am I an anti-war zealot? Of course not. No more than I am a pro-war zealot. Any sane human does not like war. But who can support a perpetual war that brings death and destruction from decade to decade, and the casualties span the generations? Am I against endless wars and the war mentality on diseases such as cancer? Without a doubt, yes!
In war, wartime generals lead the objectives of war. Yet, at the same time, these same wartime generals are under intense scrutiny and are held to a high standard of responsibility. Have they made advancements on the battlefield? Have they met their intended objectives of war? This oversight would seem obvious. If they don’t win the battlefield, if they don’t make advancements against the enemy, they are removed for different leadership that will.
How is the war on cancer going? Is it any different? More and more money is allocated and spent, yet increasing casualties are the result. A new generation will meet the same crater field that the first generation in the 1970s met. This sacred crater field is not some battlefront in Europe but is the human body.
Where is the scrutiny? Where is an assessment of the battlefield? If we are at war, which is the vernacular used regarding cancer, where are the scrutiny and high standards of the medical Generals of today? All we get is endless rhetoric, never-ending casualties, and never-ending war because we use the same battle plan used with the declaration of war by Nixon in 1971. Maybe it is time for a change?
A recent article published should raise everyone’s flag for concern. The paper reported a massive, across the board, increase in disease amongst the military; particularly highlighted was a 300% increase in cancer among the military over a five year average.
How can this be? Did we not declare war over 50 years ago? The military is the best amongst us. They are often younger, more fit, and healthier than the general population. How and why should the military see such a disease spike, particularly, a spike in cancer? How is the military losing ground on this battlefield? The military has ever been shrouded in nothing but secrecy, i.e., military secrets, but if a secret of a 300% increase in cancer amongst its rank and file is leaked, how bad must it really be? The military unit will not be ready if each individual in the military is not individually ready.
The 300% increase in cancer among the military brings me to a recent study conducted from 2005 to 2016, called the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study, or PURE, published in The Lancet journal in 2019 . This study looked at all causes of mortality across 21 countries in adults age 35-70 grouped into three categories: high-income, moderate-income, and low-income. In total, this study followed 162,534 individuals for 9.5 years. The countries included in this study included Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Zimbabwe.
What this study found has flipped the current paradigm of the leading cause of mortality on its head. The PURE study found that cancer is now the #1 cause of mortality in high-income countries even in some of the upper middle-income countries. The PURE study proves the concept that cancer is a disease of lifestyle. More than the fact that cancer is now the #1 cause of mortality amongst adults in high-income countries is the fact that deaths from cancer outweighed that from cardiovascular disease by a rate of 2.5 to 1. Not only did cancer blow by the historical #1 cause of cardiovascular disease, it more than doubled it up. That is proving a point and then some. One of the authors of the study, Dr. Latha Palaniappan, a professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, said:
“We are seeing a new epidemiologic transition — from heart disease to cancer as the leading cause of death — which is occurring first in high income communities,”
What about a local perspective? We have to look to the centers for disease control (CDC) for the data. According to the CDC, cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in the U.S. But, I propose that this statement is too broad, misrepresents the individual internal data of the different states, lacks local perspective, and is outright misleading. There is a lack of attention to the details. Broadly, the statement may be accurate, but a deep dive into the data reveals a trending and growing problem. I will leave it to you to decide whether this is intentional or not.
What we need is a more local perspective? They say that all politics is local. Healthcare isn’t politics, thank goodness, but the same local perspective does apply to health—it is best served locally because the impact is always local.
According to the CDC data in 2010, cancer was the #1 cause of mortality in 21 states. But you haven’t heard that before? It all began with Alaska, of all places, in 1993. That is over forty percent of the states in these United States where cancer is the leading cause of mortality in adults over the forever thought cardiovascular disease. Quite the contrast to the statement by the CDC that cancer is the second leading cause of death. Data, data, data, is such a stubborn thing.
It is like an old wives tale that gets repeated and followed from generation to generation without any reference of origin, or evidence of support. Don’t think that modern-day medicine is immune to this practice of passing a practice down from generation to generation without any reference to any source and data either. Modern-day medicine does exactly the same thing.
Just look at the world around us? People are censored for misinformation/disinformation every day. As sure as the sun rises and sets, censorship and cancel culture is. Censorship must be added to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote:
“In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.”
A modern, updated version would be that nothing is certain except death, taxes, and censorship.
What is information, but simply data? Data is just a “fact given”. Another American founding father, John Adams, said on the topic of facts and data,
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
One may not like data or information, but that does not make it mis- or dis-information; it is simply data. It is the bias of the individuals, the bureaucracies, the organizations who receive it and process it that makes it or interprets it as mis/dis-information. According to etymology, the origins of words, the prefix mis- is mischief, and the prefix dis- is lack of, not, or dishonest. Just look at the 300% or the PURE study above; that is simply data. The interpretation and the utilization of that data are where the bias, the mis-or dis- information comes into play.
Let’s get back to the data. Today, because John Adam’s quote still rings true, the only thing left is elimination of the data. We call that censorship or cancel culture. If one cannot debate the data, it must be destroyed. Where is the science in that?
The CDC updated this data in 2016. Cancer is now the leading cause of death in 22 states . Surprisingly, included in this list are some of the more traditionally considered healthy states of California and Arizona. By comparison, in 1993, only Alaska had cancer as the leading cause of mortality in adults, and in 2000, cancer was the #1 cause of death in Alaska and Minnesota.
I need to bring this perspective more local and closer to the current date for more relevance, notably the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
What were some of the impacts of the pandemic on cancer numbers? Were the numbers already moving up pre-Pandemic?
Unfortunately, we have to look more outside the U.S. for most publications of this data. Hmmm, I wonder why that might be? Fortunately, an American journal, the Journal of American Medical Association, published some of the European data . The Netherlands Cancer Registry reported a 40% decline in weekly cancer diagnosis during the height of the pandemic. The most significant drop was in breast cancer at 52%. In fact, according to the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch’s (AFHSB) DMED, there has been a 487% increase in breast cancer over the last five years. Let that number sink in for a moment. This data suggests that women have been more negatively impacted by the pandemic effects of a cancer diagnosis than men. More data? The United Kingdom reported a 46% delay in diagnosis and a 75% delay in referral to cancer specialists. Why? Unfortunately, this is the exact trend I have seen in my practice. There has been a decrease in cancer diagnosis, delay in diagnosis, and delay in treatment. What once took days to a week now takes weeks to months.
A quote from the Daily Mail sums it up all too well:
“Cancer patients in Britain report their lives are being cut short by delayed diagnoses and treatment pauses due to the “obsession” with COVID-19.”
Obsession by whom? Who helped to create this obsession? Who was an accessory to this obsession? How is that medicine cannot handle a pandemic and cancer simultaneously? We perform brain surgery, open-heart surgery, complex cancer surgery, even organ transplants; yet, medicine cannot walk and chew gum at the same time???
The same article quotes a University of Buckingham oncologist Karol Sikora,
“Cancer has not got any less deadly.”
This statement implies a sense of neutrality in the deadliness of cancer. Unfortunately, the moves and mandates from government, bureaucracies, politicians, medical organizations, and hospitals propagated by doctors have made cancer more deadly.
Back to a 30,000-foot perspective. What about global cancer data? The World Health Organization, WHO, compared data from 2018 to 2020. In 2018, there were 18.1 million new cancer cases and 9.6 million new cancer deaths worldwide. In contrast, in 2020, there were 19.2 million new cancer cases and 10 million new cancer deaths worldwide. Does that look like winning? All in all, If this were football, there would be a flag for piling on.
What is behind the expected growing cancer trend—the coming new pandemic of cancer? More importantly, because of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, why is the trend not changing anytime soon?
Why? How could this be? The primary reason is fear. Fear paralyzes. Fear eliminates rational thought. The recommendations and fear propagated by the CDC and perpetuated through the hospitals and doctors paralyzed both doctors and patients. Of course, add in the pro-carcinogenic mechanisms of the spike proteins highlighted in the previous post, and the recipe for the coming cancer pandemic is set.
An article published recently, Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs , will shed some further light on where this is going.
First, the authors asked a simple question. Has there been a difference in the reporting of cancer post introduction of the SAR-CoV-2 spike protein injection? In the process of answering this question, the authors made a very intriguing connection to the spike protein from injection to all other injections combined through an analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). In VAERS, an estimated < 1% of adverse events are reported (see below).
Most VAERS reports occur very early, within days, or the first month of an event. The fact that something takes many months to years to manifest as an adverse event is likely to be missed by most and not reported on at all. Add the fact that canceling and destruction could result, and there is more incentive to no-look, let alone ask the question. The likelihood that anybody recognizes the potential link between the spike protein whether through infection or injection, and cancer makes the reporting even less likely.
Comparing cancer reporting to VAERS after SARS-CoV-2 injection versus all other injections before SARS-CoV-2 combined should raise the eyes of even the unsuspecting individual and scientist. The data presented by the authors found a:
- 3 fold increase in breast cancer (147 new reports versus 49 previous)
- 5 fold increase in pancreatic cancer (27 new reports versus 6 previous)
- 5 fold increase in colorectal cancer (30 new reports versus 7 previous)
- > 5 fold increase in glioblastoma (16 new reports versus 3 previous)
- 6 fold increase in B-cell Lymphoma (19 new reports versus 3 previous)
- 13 fold increase in follicular lymphoma (13 new reports versus 1 previous)
- Included almost a doubling of metastasis (13 new reports versus 7 previous) of reported cases
Overall, cancer reporting in the VAERS database has doubled with the SARS-CoV-2 injection compared to all previous injections combined, which equals 735 new reports versus 368 last. Again, who is thinking of this link between the injection of spike protein and cancer? Moreover, the delay in presentation promotes forgetfulness, not reporting adverse events. I propose that these numbers are drastically underreported because of this lack of connection. It is important to remember that physicians’ reporting of adverse events is abysmal at best; estimates are that 10% are reported at best   . Worse, other studies suggest reporting of adverse events by physicians is as low as 1-2% . This underreported one to ten percent number results in an approximate 10% of all hospitalizations . For the VAERS reporting system, the reporting is far worse. According to the Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS),
“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” 
A recent case study proved the concept of the connection between the spike protein injection and increase in cancer growth. The article highlighted the rapid increase in angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma immediately following a spike protein booster injection . Coincidence? I think not.
The question is, how?
The argument that all spike proteins are the same, whether via injection or infection, is shattered by the finding that the suppression of interferon (IFN) is increased in those sourced with spike proteins from injection compared to natural infection. Injections actively decrease IFN levels. Interferons are a critical innate immune signal within the complexity of the human defenses. A decrease in IFN will suppress immunosurveillance and inhibit cancer prevention and protection by inhibiting the direct and indirect anti-cancer effects provided through IFN.
1. Pro-inflammatory signaling
Spike proteins increase the genetic transcription of chronic inflammation through Nuclear Factor-kappa B (NF-κB) activation. Nuclear factor-kappa B is critical in carcinogenesis, malignant transformation, metastasis, and treatment resistance. I have reviewed in previous posts and research supports   the intimate details of this connection in the last post on the relationship between metabolic endotoxemia and spike proteins.
More than spike protein-induced NF-κB activation and signaling, the spike proteins increase inflammation further by activating Toll-like 4 receptors (TLR4) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling. The result is up-regulated, unregulated systemic inflammation, and cancer loves this.
2. Platelet hyperactivation
I have reviewed this connection between spike proteins and platelet hyperactivation previously. Both the angiotensin converting enzymes type II (ACE2), and the Integrin αVβ3 receptors, also called vitronectin peptides, potentiate the metastatic potential of cancer through the platelet—cancer cell aggregate. The doubling of the reported metastasis listed above is not in isolation. Here, the spike protein-induced platelet hyperactivation is the how.
3. Epigenetic effects
Spike proteins from an injection, more than infection, alter genetic expression. It would take millions of years to modify the genetic code. A single injection can alter genetic expression, decreasing the cancer tumor suppressor genes BRCA and p53. The p53 alteration alone is found in over 60% of cancers, and the BRCA is found in breast and ovarian cancers.
4. Impaired intracellular signaling
Altered intracellular signaling is characteristic of cancer. It is cancer’s calling card. Impaired intracellular signaling leads to oncogenic transformation, oncogenic metabolic shift, and metastasis.
5. Impaired DNA repair
DNA damage is a contributing cause of cancer. For example, radiation damages DNA. DNA repair is crucial in repairing DNA damage to maintain normal, healthy cellular function. Impairment in DNA repair provides an unimpeded, direct pathway to cancer.
How is the global war on cancer going again? How is the local war on cancer going? Just as the endless wars are no longer the right approach, whether going to war with cancer or the body is no longer the right approach? The numbers don’t lie. We are losing ground on this important battlefront. We cannot afford to hide behind numbers and statistics. We are losing this war individual by individual. And, the addition of spike proteins to this equation will not help. It is important for physicians to stand tall and brave for our patients and demand that we can and must do better.
As the states and countries fall to cancer as the #1 cause of mortality, the ultimate causality is the patient. Yes, this war creates jobs, drives revenue, and gross domestic product (GDP). Yes, it provides small victories here and there, but the results we as physicians and patients should demand should be so much more. Historically, if the focus were on the patient alone, it would. Maybe, it is time to rethink this strategy of endless wars? Maybe it is time to return to patient advocacy alone. For the benefit of patients, it is time for more scrutiny and evaluation of the medical generals leading this never-ending war on cancer.
 Dagenais GR, Leong DP, Rangarajan S, Lanas F, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Gupta R, Diaz R, Avezum A, Oliveira GBF, Wielgosz A, Parambath SR, Mony P, Alhabib KF, Temizhan A, Ismail N, Chifamba J, Yeates K, Khatib R, Rahman O, Zatonska K, Kazmi K, Wei L, Zhu J, Rosengren A, Vijayakumar K, Kaur M, Mohan V, Yusufali A, Kelishadi R, Teo KK, Joseph P, Yusuf S. Variations in common diseases, hospital admissions, and deaths in middle-aged adults in 21 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 7;395(10226):785-794. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0.
 Heron M, Anderson RN. Changes in the Leading Cause of Death: Recent Patterns in Heart Disease and Cancer Mortality. NCHS Data Brief. 2016 Aug;(254):1-8. PMID: 27598767.
 Kaufman HW, Chen Z, Niles J, Fesko Y. Changes in the Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancer Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2017267. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17267.
 Seneff S, Nigh G, & Kyriakopoulos A, Mccullough P. Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs. 2022. 10.22541/au.164276411.10570847/v1.
 Sari AB-A, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, Turnbull A, Dobson Y, Grant C, et al. Extent, nature and consequences of adverse events: results of a retrospective case-note review in a large NHS hospital. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:434-9.
 Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. Br Med J. 2001;322:517-9.
 Williams DJ, Olsen S, Crichton W, Witte K, Flin R, Ingram J, et al. Detection of adverse events in a Scottish hospital using a consensus-based methodology. Scott Med J. 2008;53:26-30.
 Milch CE, Salem DN, Pauker SG, Lundquist TG, Kumar S, Chen J. Voluntary electronic reporting of medical errors and adverse events. An analysis of 92,547 reports from 26 acute care hospitals. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(2):165-170. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00322.x
 Rafter N, Hickey A, Condell S, Conroy R, O’Connor P, Vaughan D, Williams D. Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. April 2015;108(4):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcu145
 Lazarus R, Klompas M, Bernstein S. (2010). Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). Pages: 1-7. Retrieved from The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
 Goldman S, Bron D, Tousseyn T, Vierasu I, Dewispelaere L, Heimann P, Cogan E, Goldman M. Rapid progression of angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine booster shot: A case report. Front Med 2021, 8, 798095. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.798095.
 Petruk G, Puthia M, Petrlova J, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to bacterial lipopolysaccharide and boosts proinflammatory activity. J Mol Cell Biol. 2020;12(12):916-932. doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjaa067
 Carissimo G, Ng LFP. A promiscuous interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with bacterial products. J Mol Cell Biol. 2020;12(12):914-915. doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjaa068
An Oasis of Healing is an integrative medical and healing facility utilizing alternative cancer treatments that help patients and their families learn to re-establish health after having been diagnosed with cancer.
By incorporating alternative and conventional medical services, natural healing modalities, high-quality nutritional products, and a unique educational and training program, we inspire patients to regain their birthright – health.