Friday, November 20, 2015

Do You Support Cancer Research? It's a Fraud!

*******

Published on Jun 27, 2014
The Cancer Industry's Big Lie (comic) - http://www.naturalnews.com/024535.html
Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated
********
Published on May 5, 2012
How this Dr. Fought the Good Fight against the Powers that Be. The Government has spent Millions Attacking his Clinic through the FDA, all because he helps people get better by Healing their Diseases. Cancer is a very Big Business, and the Government Profits Tremendously as long as they are in Control and remain the Sole Arbiters of Life and Death.
*******
The FTC Strikes on Corrupt Cancer Charities for Fraud
Even donors are being duped left and right
by Christina Sarich
Posted on June 28, 2015
Natural Society previously exposed how the Susan G. Komen foundation has ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and the American Cancer Society hardly helps to find a ‘cure’ for cancer. In addition to these realizations, people should know that cancer charities dupe donors in numerous ways, some of them bordering on fraud.
In recent news, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with the Attorneys General in 50 states, filed charges alleging that four different cancer charities had committed fraud. Two of these charities, the Breast Cancer Society and the Children’s Cancer Fund, are two that were accused, and have gone belly-up due to the exposure.
The lawsuit will also ‘outs’ founder James Reynolds Sr. and the Cancer Fund of America who were using approximately 96% of the donations they received on themselves, or to fund ‘private’ fundraisers. Maybe 3% went to helping find a cure or cancer, or to help cancer patients in any way.
It isn’t a surprise to many people that cancer charities are at the top of the criminal circles running the ‘sick-care’ industry in America.
Samuel Epstein, M.D. is among many writers who have exposed the cancer industry for what it really is – a total racket. His book titled National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest, details the undeniable ties between cancer charities and pharmaceutical companies, and outlines a very clear conflict-of interest.
For instance, those who manufacture cancer drugs subject women to mammography tests which are shown to cause cancer, and even companies who are also responsible for making the pesticides and herbicides which cause cancer are funding many of the cancer charities that unwitting citizens give their money to.
These charities are infiltrated by lobbyists who stall legislation, and keep real cancer solutions from the masses. Meanwhile, Natural Society has reported on hundreds of these natural solutions.
Epstein writes:
“The ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to efforts to legislate and occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens.”
100 Page Report: Outlines Why American Cancer Society is Total Scam
Organizations like the ACS also spin data to make it look as though conventional cancer treatments like expensive pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, and radiation are working. This, when in fact there are more cancer cases now than 100 years ago. Modest projections show that almost 50% of the population will be diagnosed with some kind of cancer in their lifetimes now.
That’s a lot of gravy train for Big Pharma and their collaborative charities. It also means that alternative or non-conventional cancer care is in the cross-hairs of these dying organizations more than ever.
People are realizing that toxic drugs which poison the body and provide less than ideal long-term survival rates aren’t worth their money – not through inflated insurance premiums, not through payments to doctors and hospitals, and definitely not through donations given to supposed non-profit organizations who are buying fancy parties and big houses for the people who own them.
Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.
*******
One Of The Most Important Scientists In The World: “Most Cancer Research Is Largely A Fraud”
May 11, 2015
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” (source)
The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.
This man has been around the block, and obviously knows a thing or two about this subject. And he’s not the only expert from around the world expressing similar beliefs and voicing his opinion.
Here is another great example of a hard hitting quote when it comes to scientific fraud and manipulation. It comes from Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”  (source)
The list goes on and on. Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and is also a former editor of its journal, publicly stated in a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that:
“My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.” (source)
He also alluded to the fact that cancer treatment, in general, has been a complete failure.
Another interesting point is the fact that most of the money donated to cancer research is spent on animal research, which has been considered completely useless by many. For example, in 1981 Dr. Irwin Bross, the former director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institute (largest cancer research institute in the world), said that:
“The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies.” (source)
Today, treating illness and disease has a corporate side. It is an enormously profitable industry, but only when geared towards treatment, not preventative measures or cures, and that’s an important point to consider.
Another quote that relates to my point above was made by Dr. Dean Burk, an American biochemist and a senior chemist for the National Cancer Institute. His paper, “The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants (source),” published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934, is one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry.
“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” (source)
He also stated that:
“Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” (source)
In the April 15th, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UK’s leading medical journal, editor in chief Richard Horton stated:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” (source)
n 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated:
“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”
In 2009, the University of Michigan’s comprehensive cancer center published an analysis that revealed popular cancer studies are false, and that there were fabricated results arising due to conflicts of interest. They suggested that the fabricated results were a result of what would work best for drug companies. After all, a large portion of cancer research is funded directly by them. You can read more about that story here.
There is so much information out there, and so much of it is coming from people who have been directly involved in these proceedings. There is really no shortage of credible sources willing to state that we live in a world of scientific fraud and manipulation. 
All of this can be attributed to the “corporatocracy” we live in today, where giant corporations owned by a select group of “elite” people have basically taken control over the planet and all of its resources.
This is precisely why so many people are flocking towards alternative treatment, as well as focusing on cancer prevention. Much of what we surround ourselves with on a daily basis has been linked to cancer. Everything from pesticides, GMOs, multiple cosmetic products, certain “foods,” smoking, and much much more. This is something that is never really emphasized, we always seem to just assume that donating money to charities will make the problem go away, despite the fact that their business practices are highly questionable.
That being said, so many people have had success with alternative treatments like cannabis oil – combined with a raw diet or even incorporated into their chemotherapy regimen – that we should not feel as though there is no hope for the future.
The official stance on cannabis is a great example of the very practice of misinformation that I’m talking about. Its anti-tumoral properties have been demonstrated for decades, yet no clinical trials are taking place.
I am going to leave you with this video, as I have done in previous articles. It provides a little food for thought. Ignorance is not the answer, although this information can be scary to consider, it’s nothing to turn a blind eye towards.
*******

Alternative Cancer Cures Exist and Have Been Suppressed - Kimberly Carter Gamble  
*******
John D. Rockefeller's American Cancer Society Never Meant to 'CURE' Cancer
by Christina Sarich
Posted on September 22, 2014
Did you realize that all conventional methods of killing cancer have only a 3% overall ‘cure’ rate? Chemotherapy and radiation not only have low cure rates, but they also kill healthy cells and often make cancer worse, when this is completely unnecessary because most cells can be reverted into healthy, non-damaging cells with the right treatment.
That’s not something the American Cancer Society (ACS) and Susan G. Komen for the Cure want you to know, though. They are in bed with Big Pharma, and financed by the legacy of John D. Rockefeller who started the ACS in 1913.
An Unfortunate History
The ACS was begun as a business model – not a means to ‘cure’ people from life-threatening illness. It’s also a brilliant way to wash dirty money. The ACS, in fact, receives more money in contributions every few minutes than the Independent Cancer Research Foundation (ICRF) (which has 90% ‘cure rates’) receives in a full year!!
John D. Rockefeller is also the son of the founder of the pharmaceutical industry in the US. Sterling Drug, Inc., the largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 – a 54% profit.
Squibb, another Rockefeller-controlled company, made not 6%, but 576% on the actual value of its property in 1945. At this time, the Army Surgeon General’s Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were also heavily promoting vaccines to the tune of 200 million ‘shots’ per year.
Furthermore, the Rockefeller’s Trust to promote the pharmaceutical industry is also evidenced in their well-publicized donations to Harvard Medical School (more than $8 million in donations), Yale (who received more than $7 million), John Hopkins (more than $10 million in donations), Washington University in St. Louis (more than $2 million), Columbia University (who received more than $5 million in donations), and Cornell (more than $1.7 million).
The Rockefeller Foundation itself was also set up in 1904 by something called the General Education Fund – which we can only assume now was meant to ‘educate’ the masses in illness and death.
By May of 1915, the Supreme Court tried to stop this illegal drug racketeering, but even though the trust was ordered to be dismantled, the Rockefellers were already above the law.
It is this very unsavory history that has brought us to the pharmaceutical paradigm we are mesmerized with today. Sadly, our government Supreme Court, minor courts, and politicians somehow decided ‘if you can’t beat them, join them,’ and now we have – from teaching hospitals and universities, to research endowments and 501c3s, promoting a 3% ‘cure’, when there are abundantly better ways of treating cancer.
These institutions also promote an idea that cancer cells cause damage to DNA, but in the 1930s, it was proven that cancer cells could be turned back into healthy ones – before DBA was even discovered!
The industry tried very hard to discredit the studies of Dr. Royal Rife, who discovered that cancer could be treated more holistically. The AMA had a field day with his 1987 book, entitled The Cancer Cure That Worked. In 1934, Mr. Royal Rife and his associates opened 2 small clinic in California and treated sixteen cases of cancer with treatments that lasted only three minutes. Rife’s treatments rendered no adverse side effects and were 100% effective, but his is not the only story of successful cancer treatment that has been suppressed.
Since the 1900s, multiple cancer treatments that cost little or nothing have been suppressed by the legacy of the Rockefeller’s shady business. From cannabis oil miracles to Essiac tea, as soon as someone starts to interfere with Big Pharma’s money with sound solutions, you can bet they are getting a one-way ticket out of town, harassed, smacked with lawsuits, and even pronounced the sentence of death.
It is time to end their reign. They are not kings, but criminals.
Additional Sources:
YouTube.com/2flXotAQKA
YouTube.com/d6eub8Lc6Tg
*******
Cancer Research Fraud Destroys Mainstream Medical Cancer Industry
by Andre Evans
Posted on October 18, 2011
It’s fairly evident that corruption pervades many facets of our society in this day and age, with profits driving major pharmaceutical companies and various political objectives. But just how far does this type of fraud reach? It seems that it extends as far as cancer research, with monetary incentives and smudged scientific results shaking the very foundation of cancer research. Recently, the Mayo Clinic determined that ten years worth of cancer research has been made useless due to such fraud.
The nature of the medical establishment today is unsettling, to say the least. Doctors of all kinds have been trained to prescribe double-edged medical “solutions” to their patients, draining the finances of patients through side-effect ridden pharmaceuticals and invasive surgeries. Mainstream medical science is increasingly being found to be fraudulent, but many still see doctors and medical officials as ‘experts’ that can do no wrong.
The Entire Multi-Billion Dollar Cancer Industry is Based on Fraudulent Cancer Research
Particularly in regards to cancer research, many wealthy and poor individuals alike offer generous donations to cancer research organizations, utterly confident that their actions are the most noble. These individuals think that they are funding the ‘cure’ for cancer, though they are simply funding a multi-billion dollar ‘cancer industry machine’ that will never truly end the disease — it is far too profitable.  Even as they produce results in ‘scientific studies,’ it is extremely important to analyze these studies and what they are accomplishing.
Using the guise of ‘established’ medical science, these widely accepted studies are disseminated through medical journals and accepted as the ultimate authority by many. In the case of professor Sheng Wang of Boston University School of Medicine Cancer Research Center, his cancer research was found to be misconducted, fraudulent, and contain altered results. What is unsettling is the fact that his research had been previously accepted and used as a cornerstone from which to base all subsequent cancer research.
With false foundations, you cannot create a proverbial structure with structure integrity. Even the practice of peer reviewed study is in question, as many drug companies have been found to fabricate their own research and experimental studies in order to produce the desired results needed to sell their products. One such example involves Dr. Scott Reuben, a well-respected anesthesiologist who was the former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield Massachusetts. It later came out that Dr. Reuben fabricated the data for 21 studies, all of which were doctored to deceive consumers into thinking drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex were safe.
Not all studies are fraudulent, but when the motivation for these doctors and professors is fiscal, it turns the current medical paradigm into a war zone. As a consumer, it is important for you to do your own research on the harsh side effects of traditional cancer treatment methods such as chemotherapy. As millions are pumped into the phony cancer industry that thrives on fraudulent research, it is important to remember that free alternative health options do exist. Utilizing natural sweeteners, vitamin D therapy, and eliminating artificial sweeteners are extremely simple ways to effectively prevent cancer and potentially begin reversing it.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
*******
Cancer Research - A Super Fraud?
By Robert Ryan, B.Sc.
3-31-1
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).  
Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?  
Cancer Is Increasing  
Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1) By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2) The increasing trend of cancer deaths and incidence is typical of most Western nations. It has been said that this increase in cancer is just due to the fact that people now live longer than their ancestors did, and that therefore the increase of cancer is merely due to the fact that more people are living to be older and thereby have a greater chance of contracting cancer. However, this argument is disproved by the fact that cancer is also increasing in younger age groups, as well as by the findings of numerous population studies which have linked various life-style factors of particular cultures to the particular forms of cancer that are predominant there.    
The Orthodox "War on Cancer" Has Failed  
"My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."  
A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4)  
Most Cancer IS Preventable  
According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer "...80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable." (5) Environmental causes of cancer include lifestyle factors such as smoking, a diet high in animal products and low in fresh fruit & vegetables, excessive exposure to sunlight, food additives, alcohol, workplace hazards, pollution, electromagnetic radiation, and even certain pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures. But unfortunately, as expressed by medical historian Hans Ruesch, "Despite the general recognition that 85 per cent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the (U.S.) National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than 1 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974." (6)  
Prevention - Not Profitable to Industry
According to Dr. Robert Sharpe, " . . . in our culture treating disease is enormously profitable, preventing it is not. In 1985 the U.S., Western Europe and Japanese market in cancer therapies was estimated at over 3.2 billion pounds with the 'market' showing a steady annual rise of 10 per cent over the past five years. Preventing the disease benefits no one except the patient. Just as the drug industry thrives on the 'pill for every ill' mentality, so many of the leading medical charities are financially sustained by the dream of a miracle cure, just around the corner." (7)  
Desired: A State of No Cure?  
In fact, some analysts consider that the cancer industry is sustained by a policy of deliberately facing in the wrong direction. For instance, in the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. They wrote, "a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested.  
Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently." (8) Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been cured by therapies which were 'blacklisted' by the major cancer organisations.  
Does this mean that ALL of the people who work in the cancer research industry are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Author G. Edward Griffin explains ". . . let's face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else. . . [I]t's obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical-chemical] cartel's medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn't mean somebody blew the whistle and said "hey, don't research nutrition!" It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest." (9) This point is similarly expressed by Dr. Sydney Singer: "Researchers are like prostitutes. They work for grant money. If there is no money for the projects they are personally interested in, they go where there is money. Their incomes come directly from their grants, not from the universities. And they want to please the granting source to get more grants in the future. Their careers depend on it." (10)  
Money Spent on Fraudulent Research?  
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a waste of time and resources. For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies." (11)  
In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical-petro-chemical industry, "Their constant consumption is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments . . . which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security." (12)  
Imagine What Could Be Achieved  
The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others, as a complete fraud. If you would like to make a difference, inform these organisations that you won't donate to them until they change their approach to one which is focussed on prevention and study of the human condition. We have the power to change things by making their present approach unprofitable. It is only through our charitable donations and taxes that these institutions survive on their present unproductive path.    
Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone +61 (0)2-4758-6822. www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr  
The above article may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.    
References  
d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33  
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1  
Dr. Bailer, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, as quoted in Bette Overall, Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer, NZAVS, 1993, p.132  
Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K. 1988, p.47   Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.47   Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress - the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.77  
Robert Sharpe, op. cit. 1988, p.65 as quoted in Hans Ruesch, op.cit. 1992, p.65-66  
Edward Griffin, The Politics of Cancer, (audio cassette) American Media, 1975 available from CAFMR $14.  
Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification (M.D.) Report, Vol.1 No.1 p.5., Medical Demystification Crusade, 1992, CA, U.S.A.  
Irwin Bross, as quoted in Robert Sharpe, op.cit., 1988 p.179  
Dr. Werner Hartinger, in a speech given at the 2nd International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments (D.B.A.E.), London, 24 Sept. 1992.  88888888888888888888888888888888888888888
*******
Also See:
and
(Part 2)
02 August 2012
and
(Part 3
 28 September 2015
and
Cancer and Exercise!
04 September 2011
and

A World Without Cancer!

(Part 1)
08 March 2011
and
(Part 2)
31 January 2012
and
Research: Meat and Dairy Cause Cancer!
23 December 2012
and
Misinformed About Cancer? You Are Not Alone!
06 June 2013
and
I Beat Cancer
(Part 1)
10 November 2013
and
(Part 2)
31 December 2013
and
If You Know What's Good For You ...
(Part 15)
14 December 2013
and
ObamaCare - Health, Euthanasia, Life in Jeopardy!
(Part 1)
20 July 2009
and
(Part 2)
10 August 2009
and
(Part 3)
27 August 2009
and
The Last Word on ObamaCare - Maybe!
20 March 2010
and
Coming Soon - Death Panels!
23 August 2010
and
How is Obama's Healthcare Working Out?
14 October 2010
and
More about ObamaCare!
24 January 2011
and
ObamaCare is Still an Issue!
(Part 1)
03 April 2012
and
(Part 2)
28 June 2012
and
(Part 3)
08 August 2013
and
(Part 4)
27 October 2013
and
(Part 5)
19 December 2013
and
Will ObamaCare be Reversed?
(Part 1)
03 January 2014
Cancer is a Cash Cow!
01 April 2014

  

No comments: