Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Suppressed by Scientists and Big Pharma: The Hidden Cancer Cure… But Which One??

Altmeds keep telling us that “they”  (science and “big pharma”) know there is a cure for cancer, but that this knowledge is hidden from us, “so that the multinational pharmaceuticals could continue to make money. Where would they be if diseases like cancer were easily curable?”

On Science-Based Medicine, Steven Novella explains why the notion that the cure for cancer has been found years ago but is being hidden and suppressed by the powers that be merely for the sake of money, is not just very simplistic, but extremely implausible as well.

But since there are so many that claim to be the miracle cancer cure-all, I can’t help wondering which cure it is that “they” are supposed to be hiding from us…

And these are just a few, there are many, many more to be found on the internet.

Can somebody help us out and tell us: what is the real hidden cancer cure?

36 responses to “Suppressed by Scientists and Big Pharma: The Hidden Cancer Cure… But Which One??

  1. karen claus April 24, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Yes I have practically researched most of them but firstly it is important to know which cancer and why. I have helped a few people by sharing my knowledge and I do not charge money!! No quackery involved as the emphasis is on nutrition!! Laetrile is one of my favorites and something we are sadly lacking in diet these days. Most of the above is about nutrients and yes I do believe most cancers to be a nutritional deficiency and caused by lifestyle and a bad diet.

  2. jli April 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    @ Karen.
    Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. So it is not all that surprising that we don’t have a single cure for all cancers.

    Based on the evidence, Laetrile is not the wonder substance that many believe it is. It has been tested to see if it really is effective as a cancer treatment. And the results were disappointing. Here is a review from 2007 based on 36 clinical studies on the effect of laetrile on cancer in patients:
    None of these studies proved the effectiveness of laetrile.

    The lack of evidence and the risk of serious side effects are more than good reasons to ban its use as cancer treatment.

    The claim that the establishment doesn’t want a cure is absurd for several reasons. Here are some of them:
    1) Owners/employees (And their loved ones) of pharmaceutical companies suffer from cancer too.
    2) Researchers wouldn’t be able to keep their mouth shut if they found a miraculous cure or even a major breakthrough.
    3) Progress in cancer treatment is happening, even though not as fast as we all would like to. Some cancers are even easily cured.
    4) Pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t lose money for finding a cure – They would increase their income considerably.
    5) Also members of governments (and their loved ones) sometimes get cancer

    You might like to take a look at how progression has been made in the treatment of childhood cancers: Children are not part in screening programs, so what you see is not just a consequence of earlier detection. Treatment of cancer really is improving.

  3. karen claus April 25, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Firstly jli thank you for the link but anything which is a gov site is not wholly the truth. Please remember that the govts are supportive where pharmacies are concerned. “power within power”. …and yes I do believe the pharmacies want a cure, but one that can make them money. Unfortunately they can not patent anything that is “natural”

  4. beatis April 25, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Unfortunately they can not patent anything that is “natural”

    Fortunately, they can. I’m sorry Karen, but this only shows your utter ignorance on the subject. As yet there are over a hundred active chemical plant ingredients that have been isolated, patented and used to make effective medicines and there will be more every day, for the research continues. There’s more information here, should you be interested.

  5. beatis April 25, 2011 at 10:02 am


    You seem to ignore the fact that “alternative health” can not back up any so-called cures and mostly because it is a political issue

    You seem to ignore the fact that a lot of research has been done into “alternative health” and is still being done, extensively so in many cases. Many of the studied remedies however are either completely implausible or turned out not to be effective.

    anything which is a gov site is not wholly the truth. Please remember that the govts are supportive where pharmacies are concerned.

    So… what in fact you seem to believe is that anyone who is part of science, the government or the pharmaceutical industry is by definition lying. I wonder why you should choose this kind of random personal attack, rather than attacking the content of jli’s information.

  6. jli April 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Firstly jli thank you for the link but anything which is a gov site is not wholly the truth.

    You are welcome. But this particular site also lists studies, that show positive effects of various alternative therapies. Tap in any therapy of your choice in the search field at and see what you find. You will probably see that some studies show a positive result, and some show a negative result. “Pubmed” is completely indifferent. It just makes the list, and bring the abstracts.

    To know the direction the evidence points, you have to look at the positive as well as the negative studies, and do analysis of the quality of the study designs etc. It is a bit technical, but what you end up with is what is called a systematic review. And that is what the link I gave takes you to. This systematic review isn’t funded by any pharmaceutical company (And if you think it is relevant, Prince Charles strongly disagrees with one of the authors, so he is definitely not being protected by the authorities). And again the authors of this review found 36 clinical studies on the effect of laetrile on cancer in patients that met the inclusion criteria (All types of clinical studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions).

    The pharmaceuticals are not the only ones researching cancer. Personally I am in favour of pharmaceutical independent research, and have even done some myself.

    So how should we determine what is right and what is wrong about Laetrile then?
    A) Look at research made by people who are financially independent of whether Laetrile works or not.
    B) Claims made by people who have a financial interest in convincing people that Laetrile is effective as a cancer treatment.
    C) People who have been persuaded by B)

    Unfortunately they can not patent anything that is “natural”

    Beatis already addressed that. I might add that for natural products they need only patent a method of preparation or isolate an active ingredient to compete with any competitors.

  7. karen claus April 27, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Firstly I am not ignorant. I spend hours researching and I have always asked “why” so you can post all the links you want but it will not change my mind. I can post you links too then we go round and round but we remain “stalemate”. I actually think you are promoting , rather than listening. …Beatis I hope you can set a good example of being cured of cancer, by being around long enough to really dismiss natural treatment!! By this I also mean having some qualitity of life without the horrendous side-effects of cancer drugs. By the way and I will add this as a post-script….to obtain new drugs pharmaceutical chemists rigorously study nutritional supplements (i.e natural products) and once a single active ingredient is identified a chemist makes a copy-cat. The drug company then calls it their own. Simply put, if the study of nutritional supplements did not exist then drugs would not be possible. Most every day drug sold today has a natural predecessor. Drug companies and medical drs obfuscate this historical fact!!!

  8. beatis April 27, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    @Karen Claus

    to obtain new drugs pharmaceutical chemists rigorously study nutritional supplements

    Nutritional supplements are manufactured by pharmaceutical chemists, even the ones you consider as “natural”. If it’s herbs you are referring to, or using natural sources for drug development: herbs are drugs, they have always been part of scientific medicine and are being studied as drugs – as I already pointed out in a previous comment.

    Most every day drug sold today has a natural predecessor.

    Your point being? Would you suggest for cancer patients in need of taxol to chew mountains of taxus leaves on a daily basis, or for diabetes patients to brew tea of galena officinalis, instead of taking metformin?

  9. karen claus April 27, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    hmm not quite. I guess tamoxifen and arimadex are aromatase inhibitors to block oestrogen so I would look at what else might do the same naturally without chewing mountains of taxus leaves such as red clover. I would also look at my diet. You do know about the FDA ?? You do know about the crap that goes into our food such as corn-fructose, aspartame, msg as well as a cocktail of other chemicals and preservatives. Ofcourse you do because you appear to be a very intelligent woman but please dont tell me the FDA regulate all this crap because its healthy for us. We have an obesity epidemic but we are still malnourished!!! Well if the FDA say its good for us to have aspartame, then I suppose its right ?. I think you are taking this campaign against alternative health a bit too far personally because if you want to take all the drugs available to you and it helps you, then who is anyone to tell you its the wrong choice???You post links about people that died who believed in “alternative health” as if that proves a point but you seem to forget about the “deaths” from pharmaceutical drugs. As for metformin, dont even get me started on that drug!!

  10. beatis April 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    @Karen Claus

    I guess tamoxifen and arimadex are aromatase inhibitors to block oestrogen so I would look at what else might do the same naturally without chewing mountains of taxus leaves such as red clover.

    Red clover does not block estrogen, quite the contrary in fact. Red clover contains isoflavones and because of its estrogen-like effects, it might contribute to the growth of some cancers, just as estrogen does. It wouldn’t be a very smart idea to give red clover to women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.

    Firstly I am not ignorant.

    Are you sure?

    BTW, the link between obesity and increased cancer risk is well established, hence the advice to watch one’s weight and take regular exercise.

  11. beatis April 27, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Oh, and Karen, taxol and tamoxifen are unrelated. Taxol – or paclitaxel – is a mitotic inhibitor, meaning that it inhibits cell division, whereas tamoxifen is an antagonist of the estrogen receptors in breast tissue.

  12. karen claus April 28, 2011 at 4:10 am

    yes I realised after I had already sent it but I was merely trying to say that I would look at what is out there, and not what they try replicating in a laboratory. You still didnt answer me about “aspartame” (also produced in the lab) and yes obesity is also linked to cancer, as is alcohol and numerous other things such as “aspartame” and “transfats”

  13. wilmamazone April 28, 2011 at 5:51 am

    @Karin Claus

    Firstly I am not ignorant.
    Are you sure?

    In the first place I want to ask you the same question .

  14. beatis April 28, 2011 at 6:01 am

    I was merely trying to say that I would look at what is out there, and not what they try replicating in a laboratory.

    That is a false dichotomy. Things are not wrong merely because they were produced in a laboratory. You should look at what has been proven to be effective, especially in case of cancer when your life is at stake.

    The evidence for red clover as a cancer fighter is very slim at best and lots more research has to be done. It is completely irresponsible to advocate it as a cancer cure.

    As for aspartame, in my opinion there is no convincing evidence that it causes cancer. In the past 20 years aspartame has undergone many safety reviews, in the USA as well as in Europe. The most recent review was carried out by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), who reviewed more than 500 papers published in the scientific literature between 1988 and 2001, in which aspartame has consistently been shown to be safe. A recent study from Italy by the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences found a statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in female rats. In view of this, the European Food Safety Authority undertook an urgent assessment of this study to establish whether there would have to be any implications for human health and found the study seriously flawed – so flawed in fact that the results can only be considered as completely unreliable.

  15. jli April 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Firstly I am not ignorant.

    I never said you were. But you obviously have no idea about the scientific way of thinking. That doesn’t make you ignorant – we are not born with that knowledge. But it is possible to learn. And by refusing to do that, you are at risk of falling prey to people who have something to sell. And they do this in a persuasive way, often using scientific sounding lingo. Usually with some conspiracy idea to make you less skeptical to their claims.

    …so you can post all the links you want but it will not change my mind.

    I disagree with your approach. I think that it is important to ask yourself, what would make you reject a persuasively marketed cancer therapy.
    I think that failure in controlled trials is a very strong argument for rejection.
    What are your criteria for rejection?

    By this I also mean having some qualitity of life without the horrendous side-effects of cancer drugs.

    I know you don’t want to follow links, but I will bring one anyway. It is to a study that was done to see if the quality of life was better in end stage cancer patients opting for alternative therapies instead of conventional treatment. They found that patients who opted for conventional treatment had a higher quality of life. Here is the full study if you are curious to read it:

  16. evenarsenicisnatural April 28, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Yanno what, karen?

    Everything is chemicals.

  17. karen claus April 29, 2011 at 8:55 am

    yanno evenarsenicisnatural lol. Laetrile is and so is Vit B12!! (B12 doesnt get a bad press tho’ does it?) Jli I did read the link you sent thank you and ofcourse I am receptive to all information when researching. There has been a lot of advances with science and not all of it is bad but I wont change my mind about some natural therapies. I think it is about personal choice. I also have friends in my inner circle who are suffering from cancer. One such lady is having a terrible time of it and her need for different meds is increasing all the time due to some of the damaging side-effects of chemo,radiotherapy and now osteoporosis,diabetes and hypertension. Because she now has to use a wheel-chair she admits her quality of life is not great. She has more bad days than good but hey she is still with us so we have to be thankful for that. My other friend had early stages of ovarian cancer and finished chemo in 2007. She too developed diabetes and suffers terrible neuropathy which keeps her awake most nights. The neuropathy was caused by having chemo.( I have known her to cry from lack of sleep.) On the otherhand another friend who has chosen not to have invasive treatment is still doing well and enjoying life. Ofcourse he isnt cured, but people can actually “live” with cancer so it helps to remember that living with cancer as opposed to dying with cancer is what helps people live longer whether they have chemo or not. Beatis I’m not sure you will convince me about aspartame being safe because I have looked into it too but again it must be, if the FDA allow it into our food chain!!! I am (up to now) very healthy if perhaps a little overweight. My blood-pressure is good and it is the same as it was when I was in my 20’s. I rarely see my GP and I have never had a serious illness. I think diet is important but much more important is eating “fresh” and never processed. I dont care how educated you are Beatis or how many links you send me. Sometimes its common -sense that prevails.

  18. jli April 30, 2011 at 7:51 am

    …..much more important is eating “fresh” and never processed.

    Why do you think that? Many of the arguments presented in favour of this can be rejected using a bit of common sense and minimal basic knowledge of physiology (how the body works) and natural science. For instance intake of chlorophyll rich foods is claimed to increase oxygen level in the body. It is simple non controversial basic knowledge, that oxygen is produced through photosynthesis. Chlorophyll will do nothing related to oxygen supply in the absence of light.
    Another example is the supply of enzymes from raw food. To be absorbed by the body, these enzymes will have to be degraded to their amino acids. And they don’t automatically reassemble into the original enzymes again. That would require a gene somewhere in the DNA, which would result in the production of the enzyme anyway.

    My health status is similar to yours, and I haven’t done anything special. I eat what I like (A normal balanced diet), and I ride bicycle to and from work. That’s all it takes.

  19. Ikaruga May 19, 2011 at 4:18 am

    Hello, I am ignorant 🙂 (honesty first)

    Hmmm, how to cure…

    Let’s have a look at yoguis etc, they seem to be performing incredible feats, how about checking that up? (Left many seemingly impossible to abandon addictions because of adecuate practice).

  20. Sad June 8, 2011 at 6:38 am

    if i found out they were hiding the cure i’d kill them because they are killing people

  21. Pingback: Is homoeopathic medicine any good at shrinking tumours? «

  22. Pingback: Is homoeopathic medicine any good at shrinking tumours? |

  23. Pingback: Lung Cancer Alternative Remedies and Options?

  24. Pingback: Medical cures they don't want you to know - Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of

  25. Pingback: What can you tell me about alternative treatment cancer centers?treatment of cancer

  26. Soulvei A. Winterfall May 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    My mother’s mega-church ( had a seminar from those Gerson charlatans. I am not a church-goer, but I would have hoped that those in charge would have screened snake oil touting presenters from their cancer support group.
    I was raised on an organic diet, exercised much more than the average child as I wasn’t allowed video games, and took vitamins and supplements. She was raised in a similar fashion. She just finished having a complete hysterectomy to remove the Ovarian Cancer that she was recently diagnosed with. She approached me about the Gerson presentation and I simply asked her “Would you like to live or die?”. She had no qualms about chemo after that. There is no reason to play with your life in that manner.
    I can also see the other side of this argument: Chemotherapy is a scary word. Your hair falls out, your immune system is compromised, and you can have all sorts of side-effects. I too was afraid of pharmaceuticals because of all of the “bad press” that the people who sold vitamins and supplements to me would quote. However, despite my best efforts to cure my genetically predisposed ailments with alternative medicine, I found myself voluntarily checking myself into a mental hospital, taking psych meds, and actually feeling BETTER. Then, when I started getting sick, instead of reaching for bovine liver extract, I grabbed my inhaler, some Vicks, and called my doctor for antibiotics. When I have bouts of debilitating fatigue (I have M.E. I take the rest I need, take my medications as prescribed, and feel better within a week or two. When I have panic attacks, I don’t tell myself to “suck it up” while popping vitamins until I’m sick, I immediately recognise the symptoms and bring myself back to reality enough to grab my emergency medication (If I don’t take it, I will have successive attacks).
    If it were not for “Big Pharma” I would still be stuck in the money-sink that these alternative therapies offer. I would also still be very sick. It may be an anecdotal example, but that is all I have ever found them to be: black holes for the desperate to throw their money into. I hope that the FDA cracks down on these awful people who offer false, unscientifically-based hope to the desperate. They deserve to be put out of business so that people can get the PROPER treatment that they need. And if medical science doesn’t work, well, we are still only a little over a hundred years removed from Frontier Physicians who could do naught more than mend a broken limb or hope for the best when someone contracted pneumonia. One hundred years ago, as an asthmatic, I would have died in my infancy. We need only wait– medical science is constantly trying for cures– It is how they make their money.


  27. Soulvei A. Winterfall May 16, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    I assure you, dear, the cure would be far too profitable for them to hide.

  28. Pingback: What does this statement about cancer mean, and what is your opinion of it? - medical research papers

  29. Pingback: There is no time to wait for alternative cancer therapy to work err….fail « Anaximperator blog

  30. Michael March 10, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Karen you are right. I know 4 people that have refused chemo and radiation. These people despite what their Md’s have told them refused any drugs. These people alkalized their bodies and their cancer disappeared. Their Md’s still want them on chemo or radiation. I am sure the drug companies want everyone on their drugs. These people every day prove to me cancer is curable without drugs. The fear of Big Pharma is everyone that finds out how to cure cancer will refuse their drugs. If I come down with cancer I to will alkalize my body and I will refuse their drugs.

    As for aspartame, alcohol, MSG, GMO’s, GE’s and quite a number of other drugs; they make your body acidic which allows any type of cancer, leukemia, sickle cell anemia and HIV to grow progressively worse.

    Substances that make us acidic cow milk, refined sugars, tobacco smoke. Microwave and irradidiated fruits and veggies, do some homework you will find more.

  31. Erica Kirchner-Dean May 30, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    And whatever you do don’t eat the chocolate. Especially the dark variety!

  32. Barb July 17, 2013 at 5:12 am

    Why what’s wrong with dark chocolate

  33. Bon July 28, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    I love how everyone does research. Did you take countless years of classes to help you read the research to weed out fact from fiction? This is such a huge problem today- people who do not have the background are spouting out what they deem as “truth.” Very sad when years of scientific data are thrown by the wayside.

  34. JLI July 30, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Not only that. I have reviewed numerous manuscripts submitted for acceptance in scientific medical journals. I have co-authored more than 50 scientific research articles in peer reviewed medical science journals, and just submitted another manuscript today. Furthermore I have been a co-supervisor for a handful of PhD students.

    If anyone wants to know the basics of how treatments should be tested, I recommend this book:

  35. Oystein Martin August 17, 2013 at 9:17 am

    What about Rick Simpson? He spent his fortune on helping people…..Rick Simpson/ The Cure.Hes now on the run from the police/goverment because he cured cancer!!!! Use your brain…..big pharma is in many cases a mafioso clan.MONEY AND POWER……

  36. JLI August 17, 2013 at 11:28 am

    Rick Simpson’s claims are based on testimonials. These aren’t useful as evidence, because there are so many things that can be wrong with them. If you are interested in learning about how to evaluate such testimonials, this site is recommendable:

    I’ll just sum up the main points:
    1) It might not even have been cancer
    2) The cancer may have been removed as part of the diagnostic procedure
    3) The alternative therapy may have been used alongside conventional treatment, which may be what actually delivered the cure. Even a biopsy may sometimes be curative.
    4) The cancer might not have disappeared after all
    5) The testimonial may be pure fabrication.

    The fact that anti-cancer capabilities of cannabis is being researched proves that it is not being suppressed. Here is a balanced, honest and up to date review of the results of cannabis research, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it:

    …..big pharma is in many cases a mafioso clan.MONEY AND POWER……

    Well – How do you think The Big Suppla industry (BS) managed to defeat FDA’s proposal that in order to protect the consumers, manufacturers of supplements should provide data on safety and efficacy before selling them?

    If you guess that they spend money on campaigning, bullying opponents, recruitment of celebrities and political lobbying, you are on to something.

    BS isn’t a weak innocent well meaning group of people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: