|Journal of Theoretics
The Truth about Cancer
The scientific misinformation that is being spread by the mainstream press is overwhelming. One of the biggest lies is that certain substances (i.e., cigarettes) cause cancer.
Initially, if “A” causes “B” then one must have at least a majority correlation for it to be true but even dreaded cigarettes only cause lung cancer less than 3% of the time in lifelong smokers
[Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)].
Secondly, cancer is multifactorial. It is a combination of genetic predisposition, immunity, exposure to cancer initiating agent(s), exposure to agent(s) which enhance cancer growth, diet, activity, and many more factors. No one factor will cause cancer!
There are a few lone voices of truth in the wilderness other than myself such as Steven Milloy in his article, “Feds Scare Public With Cancer 'Causes',”
and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72881,00.html) where he says:
First, the notion that substances by themselves cause cancer is faulty. There is not a single substance or group of substances that, acting alone, causes cancer in all people at any and every level of exposure.
Many circumstances affect human cancer risk, including the level and duration of exposure to a substance, and, more importantly, an individual's genetic make-up and lifestyle.
… if a substance may have contributed to cancer development in a small number of individuals, then that substance is deemed a "known" carcinogen. Forget that the substance doesn't cause cancer among the vast majority of people.
It's not even clear that substances labeled as "known" to be cancer-causing have anything to do with cancer development under any circumstances -- examples include hormone replacement therapy, secondhand smoke, soot and PCBs.
For decades, it has been well known in the medical world that cancer is multifactorial and that no one thing causes cancer, then why is the truth not getting out? The answer:
Money, Politics, Media Bias, and Ignorance. Medical studies are often funded by organizations with a bias towards a certain outcome, such as the American Cancer Society. It is politically correct to be against tobacco, asbestos, silicone, and so on. The media has a bias against big business and its products, as well as a
Political Correctness agenda. Finally, it is easy to dumb down the truth to “cancer is caused by …” rather than telling the truth with a laundry list of factors, which increase the risk of someone developing cancer.
You wouldn’t believe all of the email I get about people who feel guilty about smoking or that they ‘caused’ someone’s cancer (i.e. second-hand smoke*). From those that are anti-smoking, the vast majority will not change their mind no matter what the facts are. I don’t smoke cigarettes and don’t like them but I respect other people’s right to make risk/benefit decisions for themselves. If we allow government to determine what we can and can’t do, then we have lost our freedom.
Why is the truth important? I have faith that the American people (and those of other countries) want to know the truth and that they can make intelligent decisions based upon factual information. Armed with the truth, risk/benefit decisions can be made by individuals. We must come to realize that everything has risks and benefits. If we wanted to avoid all risk, we wouldn’t get up in the morning. Call me an optimist, but I have faith that people would rather know the truth than the lies and half-truths that they are being fed by the financially/politically motivated medical profession and the biased media.
Dr. Siepmann, Editor-in-ChiefJournal Home
*Unpublished WHO study has shown no correlation between second-hand smoke and cancer. In fact, it showed that second-hand smoke exposure may decrease the incidence of respiratory illness.
comments/questions to: firstname.lastname@example.org
© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2003