1
- 1 year ago
Category
🦄
CreativityTranscript
00:00:00In our lifetime, cancer has become the disease to beat all diseases and its power has increased
00:00:14beyond all expectation. Millions of families worldwide have been touched by the big and
00:00:20rapacious sea and, famous or not, the devastation has impacted generations. No wonder so many
00:00:27people feel compelled to raise billions in the hope of finding a cure for it. Every year, people
00:00:33worldwide race for it, stand up to it, box for it, bake for it, cut for it, travel for it and they go
00:00:39pink for it and they raise billions of pounds to research it. But what they haven't yet been able
00:00:45to do is stop it, for no matter the sums raised over the last century, cancer seemingly marches on
00:00:52unabated. I'm Sonia Poulton, I'm a journalist and broadcaster and like so many people I have loved
00:00:57ones who have been personally touched by cancer. I set out on this journey because I was curious
00:01:03about the enduring nature of the disease and I wanted to answer questions that bothered me.
00:01:08What I discovered was an abundance of information from peer-reviewed science papers to YouTube videos
00:01:13from blogs and vlogs to freedom of information requests, much of it contradictory. Cancer,
00:01:19certainly, is not short on promotion or public awareness, but who was telling the truth?
00:01:25For example, could it possibly be right that cancer treatments were doing more harm than
00:01:30good? And if so, why is the British taxpayer funding it to the tune of billions each year?
00:01:35Along the way, I found people who break the law, either by treating cancer patients or by
00:01:41treating themselves, and at their own substantial cost. And I found myself asking, if these people
00:01:47truly are being cured naturally, why does the cancer establishment insist that by 2030, cancer
00:01:53will be a bigger threat to our existence than ever before? And further, if we already have the cure,
00:01:59why are we still raising billions each year to find it? This, then, is the business of cancer.
00:02:10In our 21st century lives, cancer is a shudder word. The mere mention of it creates in humans a raw
00:02:17and visceral reaction. We've become so steeped in fear about the very plague that it has become,
00:02:22that people often assume they have it when they fall ill with something else. It has become the
00:02:27big go-to dread. Cancer generates hundreds of thousands of headlines every year, some purely
00:02:32sensational, others with a deeper, more troubling concern attached to them. But cancer wasn't always
00:02:38the big hitter. At the beginning of the 1900s, cancer affected around 1 in 20 people. By the 1940s,
00:02:45it was impacting 1 in 16, and with the dawning of the 1970s, 1 in 10 people were diagnosed with it.
00:02:52Could it get worse? It did. In 2019, we are looking at the dire notion that 1 in 2 people will get cancer
00:03:00in their lifetime. But that's not all. According to governments, cancer charities, and the health
00:03:06establishment, it's going to get even worse before it gets better. We are now being told that by 2030,
00:03:13cancer will rise by a further 40% in the UK. What on earth is going on?
00:03:21Cancer, then, has apparently won in the war against humanity. We've fallen by the wayside in the wake of
00:03:26the ever-powerful, ever-mighty cancer. Certainly, there's no pride in announcing that it's the biggest
00:03:32killer we have in our world, but there's a great deal of confusion as to why that is.
00:03:37Which is why I set out on this journey. I was curious. Curious about why, after over 100 years
00:03:43of raising billions to research and find a cure for cancer, we still haven't, according to received
00:03:47wisdom, that is. I sought as well-rounded a look at the cancer industry as possible,
00:03:53and I talked with people all the way along the cancer chain. From charity fundraisers to the
00:03:57oncologists, the cancer doctors themselves, I conversed with surgeons and pharmaceutical
00:04:02representatives, health academics and international scientists. I talked with people on the front
00:04:07line, including those who are still living with cancer, those in remission, and those who claim
00:04:12to have cured themselves. But I went further, and I spoke with people who have been engaged in healing,
00:04:17even though it could cost them their livelihoods to do so. I even talked with lawmakers around cancer,
00:04:22including politicians and several lords from the UK. Some of these people asked to remain anonymous.
00:04:28I've granted them that. Several of them expressed their fears that they would be ostracised from
00:04:33their professional interests in politics, technology and drug companies if they were seen
00:04:38to be speaking out against the established order that surround the treatment of cancer.
00:04:43Cancer has changed so rapidly in my lifetime, it has been extraordinary to witness.
00:04:48Bath-based writer and anti-austerity campaigner, Keith Lindsay Cameron, was diagnosed with cancer in 2016.
00:04:54And growing up, I'm 67 now, cancer was that big sea, rare as rocking horse manure. I never knew anyone
00:05:09with cancer as a child. It was not a topic of conversation anywhere when I was a kid.
00:05:16From my personal experience, I've seen this cancer explosion and it's been breathtaking to witness.
00:05:21Growing up in 1960s England, it was unusual to hear about people dying with cancer.
00:05:27And certainly, my experience was unusual compared to people of a similar age,
00:05:31in that my father and stepfather both died with cancer.
00:05:35As a young child, I spent many hours in the graveyard in my home village in Gloucestershire, England,
00:05:41by the graveside of my stepfather, trying to understand what had happened.
00:05:45As a child, I was aware of the deep impact the death had on my three older siblings
00:05:49and it left me with a great fear of somehow triggering cancer,
00:05:53which was said to be a cruel master when it settled upon its prey.
00:05:57So I went back in on the 4th of June, fully expecting to be told,
00:06:02don't worry, it's nothing and blah, blah, blah.
00:06:04And then when they tell you, it's cancer, it's...
00:06:09I've waited a long time to tell my story and I've got no shame.
00:06:19I'm so proud.
00:06:22And I actually feel blessed.
00:06:23So it's been like, I don't know, when I was diagnosed in 2013
00:06:29and we had a very difficult process to get to this point.
00:06:38Many online videos about cancer have been set around the American industry,
00:06:41but seeing as the world's leading cancer research charity, Cancer Research UK,
00:06:46has its origins in the UK,
00:06:48we believe it's time to look at what's happening this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
00:06:53But first, what is cancer, if only it was that simple to answer?
00:06:58Some describe it as cells which have become disordered
00:07:01and then grow uncontrollably, invading and destroying surrounding healthy tissue.
00:07:06Others view it as an inflammation,
00:07:07which is recognised by the medical establishment as a hallmark of cancer.
00:07:12Others still believe it is a negative disruption of the immune system,
00:07:16a man-made disease and even a mineral deficiency.
00:07:19So which is right? Could all of them be?
00:07:21So if there is a disagreement about what cancer is,
00:07:25what about what causes it?
00:07:26There again, we have a multitude of opinions depending on who is doing the informing.
00:07:31Carcinogens, cancer-causing agents that come at us from many angles,
00:07:35are contained in many aspects of our modern living
00:07:38and are external to us and often beyond our control.
00:07:41So, it's not just bad diets, but here, here, here, here, and yes, here too.
00:07:48But still, it's complex.
00:07:51For as we shall see, the potential causes of cancer are many.
00:07:56Many people I talked with believe our cancer explosion is a result of our ageing population.
00:08:01But is that true?
00:08:04I've spoken to cancer researchers, I've spoken to Macmillan,
00:08:08and I said, what's going on?
00:08:11One in two people getting cancer.
00:08:14And I said, ageing population.
00:08:17And my bullshit detector went, bang, what?
00:08:21You know, you can look at all these things in different ways.
00:08:24So you could see that as a sign of success rather than failure.
00:08:29So if your population is now living into their late 80s and 90s,
00:08:34then you would expect there to be more cancer in that population.
00:08:37But the bad thing is if you're starting to get more cancer in your 20-year-olds
00:08:41and 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds.
00:08:44Actually, dying of cancer at the age 90 is a natural phenomenon.
00:08:48Your genome's being damaged all the time as you go through
00:08:53by different factors, your diet, but just ageing.
00:08:57One of the issues is people say we're living longer today.
00:09:01And I smile at that because the people that are living longer today,
00:09:05in the 80s and the 90s, God forbid, good gracious,
00:09:08think about their childhood.
00:09:10They had such a tremendous start to life, a good foundation of health.
00:09:15They were eating healthy food, generally from the garden.
00:09:20They weren't eating processed food.
00:09:22And that's why they've got a good start in life
00:09:24and it's helped them in good stead
00:09:25and to get to what we call an old age, 85 to 90.
00:09:31Which I don't think is an old age.
00:09:33So why is it?
00:09:35Why do people die then?
00:09:37Well, a lot of them still do die
00:09:39because they've not been able to overcome the last 40 years of their life
00:09:43of eating processed food.
00:09:45And it's just a handful that get through.
00:09:48Interestingly, the one factor that all contributors agreed on
00:09:51in tackling cancer, the importance of food.
00:09:55Dr Sarah Myhill has long been an advocate for patients.
00:09:58She founded the MAMES campaign
00:10:00and has been summoned before the British Medical Association
00:10:03for saying that the pill and HRT was bad medicine.
00:10:06But she goes on regardless.
00:10:09Cancer cells are very like bacterial cells and yeast cells.
00:10:12They can only run on sugars and carbs.
00:10:15If you starve a cancer cell of its fuel supply, which is sugars,
00:10:20it will upgrade the mechanism by which it absorbs that sugar.
00:10:24Now, it just so happens that vitamin C is very similar to sugar.
00:10:28In fact, most other mammals can make vitamin C themselves from sugar.
00:10:32So if you then starve them with a ketogenic diet
00:10:35and then give those patients a large dose of vitamin C,
00:10:38the cancer cell grabs the vitamin C instead of the sugar and that kills it.
00:10:43Given that everyone, including the MP Matt Hancock,
00:10:46whose job is to oversee the health service,
00:10:48tells us that much of this could be avoided if we ate better,
00:10:52it's not too much to assume that hospital food
00:10:54given to aid recovery would be exemplary.
00:10:57Alas, no, they are largely mass-produced, processed food
00:11:00with barely a nod to any nutrition.
00:11:03I put out a public request for people to send me pictures
00:11:05of hospital meals they were given.
00:11:07I wasn't unduly shocked while I got back,
00:11:10some of it unrecognisable as food.
00:11:12But it is clear that our health establishment
00:11:14does not follow its own good advice on nutrition
00:11:17and is somewhat hypocritical.
00:11:19In truth, few of us have led exemplary lies
00:11:23regarding our diets post-war
00:11:25and we lived in an increasingly immediate gratification society
00:11:28and that included the production of our food.
00:11:32Consumers, we were told, demanded food to be bigger,
00:11:34to look better, to last longer and to be easier to make
00:11:37and with that came the beginning of edibles
00:11:39that were no longer food but food-like products.
00:11:42And that was a disaster for our bodies,
00:11:44resulting in all manner of sicknesses,
00:11:46from inflammations and infections to a breathtaking increase in cancer.
00:11:51But our food habits are changing
00:11:53and the group born at the turn of the 21st century
00:11:56are more vegan than any generation before.
00:11:59As a consequence, the market is reacting,
00:12:01but again, we are being led down a process path.
00:12:04Too much of what is marketed as healthy is not necessarily so.
00:12:09In response, small businesses are staging their own march
00:12:11on promoting a plant-based diet.
00:12:14Here's one.
00:12:14Based in Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England.
00:12:17This is owned by two young brothers
00:12:19who converted their whole family to veganism.
00:12:22What are the true repercussions of not eating proper food?
00:12:27I'm talking about food.
00:12:30Ideally organic fruit and veg, nuts, seeds, beans.
00:12:35All these are natural foods in the whole state.
00:12:39And that's what we need to be eating, really.
00:12:41As far as I can tell,
00:12:44this is predominantly 98% a man-made disease.
00:12:54An epidemic.
00:12:56They put crap in our food
00:12:58and anything that adulterates food,
00:13:01additives, is a carcinogen.
00:13:03They have exploded over 2,000 nuclear weapons in my lifetime.
00:13:12We've got Fukushima, Long Island, Chernobyl.
00:13:16We're pouring radiation into our world.
00:13:20We are polluting the sea with plastic junk.
00:13:26America got rid of their nuclear waste into the sea.
00:13:30And if the barrels they were throwing into the sea didn't sink,
00:13:34they would shoot them.
00:13:37Professor Mark McGurk is a face and neck cancer surgeon
00:13:40who also teaches at a London university.
00:13:43He is keen to find less invasive ways to treat cancer patients.
00:13:47It's very difficult to try and put your finger on external factors,
00:13:54but they must have a role.
00:13:56It's silly to think that the environment in which you live
00:14:01does not have an impact on you.
00:14:03The question is quantifying that and seeing which of the ones who are important.
00:14:10So, for example, I don't think we had that much insight into the radiation impacts
00:14:16on different parts of the body,
00:14:17but after the Second World War and the atomic bomb in Japan,
00:14:23you saw certain cancers come up in the population
00:14:27which showed you those tissues were sensitive to radiation.
00:14:30So, you know, an environmental factor there had an impact.
00:14:36What is 5G?
00:14:37While researching how all these cancer branches linked together,
00:14:40something else came up on my radar and it troubled me.
00:14:43Because, if true, the implications could detrimentally impact
00:14:47every man, woman, child and animal.
00:14:50A group of scientists, doctors, environmental organisers
00:14:53and concerned citizens got together
00:14:55and they called for the urgent stop to the deployment of 5G.
00:14:58They said that it's been proven harmful to human bodies,
00:15:02that this is an experiment on humanity
00:15:04and that this should be called a crime under international law.
00:15:07In October 2018, anti-5G campaigner Mark Steele had his day in court.
00:15:12Well, several, as it would turn out.
00:15:14The first in which he was accused of harassing an array of council workers,
00:15:19including politicians and executives,
00:15:21over his allegation that streetlights around his native Gateshead
00:15:25were plumbed into the 5G mobile system,
00:15:28recognised as a cast and a gem by who,
00:15:30and was, according to Steele's allegations, killing babies.
00:15:34For a couple of years now, you know,
00:15:36people have been laughing about what you've been saying.
00:15:37People have been saying this is nonsense.
00:15:39But he's saying we should debate it.
00:15:40And he's told Gated Council about what you make of that.
00:15:42I think it's correct.
00:15:43I should be able to debate this back with Gateshead Council.
00:15:46Gateshead Council should answer the second question that I've put to them
00:15:49about these transmitters being hazardous,
00:15:53administering noxious substance.
00:15:55That current classification should be a class one cancer-causing radiation.
00:16:00The council, Gateshead, issued a fairly lengthy denial via its Facebook page.
00:16:04It was most unusual.
00:16:06I was curious.
00:16:07While others keenly dismissed worries of 5G as conspiracy theory territory,
00:16:11I wondered, was there anything in the stories I was hearing about the dangers of it?
00:16:16I talked with a number of people from the telecommunications and science communities.
00:16:21I wanted to know if 5G is harmful to our good health.
00:16:24This man was prepared to speak to me as long as I hid his voice and identity.
00:16:29He is fearful of the personal consequences for speaking out.
00:16:33You know, I'm one of the many executives who led the charge on technology.
00:16:37And my digital telecom strategies have potentially experienced
00:16:40by over 200 million people each day,
00:16:43subscribers to telecoms providers that I've worked with.
00:16:47You know, I've even persuaded, you know,
00:16:51people in the past to get smartphones that didn't have them before.
00:16:56You know, so that was me a few years ago.
00:16:59You know, and I've come up with ways of getting people in East Asia and Asia.
00:17:04Essentially, what I see now is getting hooked on 4G and 3G.
00:17:08You know, something I didn't think about at the time,
00:17:10because there was literally no awareness on the dangers of accumulative usage of microwave technology.
00:17:16But all of a sudden, I'm starting to see now people in India,
00:17:20people in Pakistan, people in Bangladesh,
00:17:23people in Thailand,
00:17:24people in Korea that are now standing up saying,
00:17:27hang on a minute,
00:17:28can you just kind of tell us whether or not this stuff's dangerous?
00:17:33Because there's people dying down here.
00:17:34We're feeling a bit sick since you put these masks up.
00:17:38You know, so I'm bringing clarity to this whole thing,
00:17:40because there's no balance in the information that's given to people
00:17:43who are interacting and using this technology every day.
00:17:47You know, if I could be selfish,
00:17:48I would make millions out of people's ignorance.
00:17:52But my belief system doesn't allow this.
00:17:54But there are people out there, Sonia, who don't care about people.
00:17:59They just care about the amount of money that they can make from ignorance.
00:18:04This is Dr. Judy Mikovits,
00:18:06an outspoken scientist who was at the National Cancer Institute in America for two decades.
00:18:12I met her at a health conference in London.
00:18:15Interested to know from you what you think about contributing factors
00:18:19in terms of phone masks, 5G, mammograms, anything like that.
00:18:24Do you think any of them have valid contributing factors towards cancer?
00:18:29Oh, absolutely.
00:18:29All of them do.
00:18:31And all of them cause, you know, cross-talk.
00:18:34So they will, like, synergize with each other.
00:18:38Like, the 5G cripples the immune system.
00:18:41So if you're coming in with aluminum, you know, and a vaccine there,
00:18:47it's almost like a concussion.
00:18:49When I, you know, hear, you know, that Wi-Fi and 3G and 5G,
00:18:56you know, because obviously some people talk about being worried about those things,
00:19:01to me, what happens there is you increase fear and anxiety
00:19:07because this isn't something you can control.
00:19:10So I tend to try and focus on what we can have charge of.
00:19:16So, you know, sitting inside worrying about our Wi-Fi coming from our neighbor
00:19:22is not good for our health and well-being.
00:19:25So I tend not to support models or theories that create fear and anxiety.
00:19:34Undoubtedly, the extraordinary rise of cancer is a complex business.
00:19:38It cannot be reduced to an aging population,
00:19:40for why would we have five-year-olds with it?
00:19:43It isn't necessarily down to one aspect of our carcinogenic environment,
00:19:47but something of a stacking up of exposure
00:19:49and how that ultimately impacts the individual.
00:19:51In the UK, 30,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every month
00:19:57and 163,444 people die from cancer each year.
00:20:05There are no official mortality statistics available beyond 2016.
00:20:10New survival statistics claim that people are living longer than ever before,
00:20:14including for a decade and beyond.
00:20:16But is that really such a triumph
00:20:18when some people insist we have the knowledge to cure people completely?
00:20:22We know exactly how to fix this,
00:20:24and we know how to prevent it,
00:20:25and we know how to stop it at every stage.
00:20:27And that wouldn't make very much money, would it,
00:20:30if we could eat foods and we could keep from,
00:20:33prevent from developing cancer.
00:20:36Despite this, mainstream medicine continues to support
00:20:39the use of the same three treatments
00:20:41which have been authorized in the last century,
00:20:43chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy.
00:20:46But here's the kicker.
00:20:48Two of these three are alarmingly carcinogenic.
00:20:52In fact, a number of cancer medications are so toxic
00:20:55in terms of being recognized as human carcinogens
00:20:58that the handling of these drugs is carried out to strict standards.
00:21:02No wonder, of the dozens of people I spoke with
00:21:05who had been through mainstream treatment,
00:21:07over half of them had cancer that had come back.
00:21:10Small sample, certainly.
00:21:11But are they representative of a wider picture
00:21:13and one in which the general public,
00:21:16and cancer sufferers in particular,
00:21:18require a permanent solution rather than a temporary stay?
00:21:22Natasha England is a musician most famous for a 1980s hit.
00:21:27Her cancer came back a decade later.
00:21:29My problem with conventional treatment is that everything
00:21:33that they give you for cancer is cancer-causing.
00:21:39From the mammogram through,
00:21:42it's all about radioactive substances,
00:21:46going to need x-rays, chemo,
00:21:50which is not, I can't say too much,
00:21:55but there's people going through chemo,
00:21:57and I wish them well, but I did my research this time
00:22:01and quite frankly, it was a no-brainer for me.
00:22:04It's important to note at this point
00:22:06that when it comes to cancer, as with all health issues,
00:22:08there were two particularly defined schools of thought,
00:22:12mainstream and natural treatments.
00:22:14Lewis Montague is lead investigative researcher
00:22:17for natural treatments at the New Earth University,
00:22:20a worldwide team of people
00:22:21who are creating an alternative evidence-based narrative
00:22:24to the mainstream thought that has dominated for centuries.
00:22:28I first met Lewis about five years ago in a production office.
00:22:31He gave me a copy of Dirty Medicine.
00:22:33It was inevitable we would work together in the future.
00:22:36We have a situation whereby
00:22:38we have the allopathic drug-based medicine on the one side,
00:22:44and we have the natural therapies and the treatments
00:22:48and the products on the other side.
00:22:50Two distinct approaches to health and the illness.
00:22:56So what we have is,
00:22:58on the allopathic side,
00:23:00we have drugs which have been researched,
00:23:04which can take many, many years to do,
00:23:07because they are dealing with synthetically created chemicals,
00:23:12man-made.
00:23:13They are not natural.
00:23:16And who doesn't know that drugs have an adverse effect,
00:23:21as well as doing what they're trying to do?
00:23:23Sherry Bevan was diagnosed with breast cancer in summer 2018
00:23:27and is not someone who follows blindly.
00:23:29As a mother of two,
00:23:30she juggles work and family commitments.
00:23:33She researched and felt she had little choice
00:23:35but to pursue conventional treatment.
00:23:38And I had people say to me,
00:23:39you don't have to have surgery,
00:23:40you know, there are alternatives.
00:23:41And I did my research and read up about it
00:23:44and thought, well,
00:23:45I know there are alternatives.
00:23:47However, I kind of just,
00:23:50I just wanted it out.
00:23:51And I wasn't convinced that the,
00:23:56you know,
00:23:56I knew from,
00:23:58you know,
00:23:58as a breastfeeding counselor,
00:24:00you know,
00:24:00we very much focus on evidence-based research.
00:24:03And I just wanted to go with
00:24:05what had the strongest,
00:24:07most robust research
00:24:09evidence to support
00:24:10that that is going to work.
00:24:13But is she right?
00:24:14Supporters of the natural health approach
00:24:16claim that evidence is all around us,
00:24:18including the numerous videos online
00:24:20of people claiming to have cured their own cancer.
00:24:23But online is a minefield
00:24:25for anyone wishing to explore treatments
00:24:27outside of the status quo.
00:24:28A recent study
00:24:30deemed YouTube videos on cancer
00:24:32to be dangerous
00:24:32and misleading.
00:24:34So who can be trusted
00:24:35with alternative health information?
00:24:37Not Wikipedia,
00:24:38for starters,
00:24:39where natural
00:24:40and alternative entries
00:24:41are subject
00:24:42to Orwellian-esque monitoring.
00:24:44Just look at the list
00:24:45they read
00:24:46flagged for constant observation.
00:24:48No wonder
00:24:48so many feel
00:24:49they have no alternative
00:24:50but to pursue
00:24:51mainstream treatments
00:24:52given the lack of clarity
00:24:53that exists
00:24:54around natural health.
00:24:56The human cost
00:24:56of this information
00:24:57imbalance is immense.
00:24:59Here,
00:24:59Sherry recounts
00:25:00her initial response
00:25:01to her cancer surgeon.
00:25:03It's right behind the nipple,
00:25:04right at the front.
00:25:05We'll have to take the nipple off.
00:25:06And actually,
00:25:07that for me
00:25:07was the moment
00:25:08that was really hard to accept.
00:25:18Because in my head,
00:25:19well, you know,
00:25:21there is no justification
00:25:23for cancer
00:25:24but it felt unfair
00:25:26because, you know,
00:25:28because I've breastfed
00:25:31all my girls
00:25:32and breastfed them
00:25:33for a long time.
00:25:34You know,
00:25:34for a lot of people,
00:25:35they would think
00:25:36I was one of those weird
00:25:37mums that breastfed them
00:25:39for a long time
00:25:39and it felt,
00:25:41and I know statistically
00:25:42the breast cancer risk
00:25:43is reduced
00:25:44if you breastfeed.
00:25:46So that's,
00:25:47when he said,
00:25:47well, I have to take
00:25:48your nipple away,
00:25:49that was what really got me
00:25:50and what upset me
00:25:51because I thought,
00:25:52that's not fair
00:25:53because I've breastfed
00:25:54my children
00:25:54and you can't take away
00:25:56where the milk's come from.
00:26:00Those leaves on that tree,
00:26:02it's been a slow autumn
00:26:04this year
00:26:04and they fall
00:26:06like gold coins.
00:26:06It's so beautiful.
00:26:11Keith Lindsay Cameron
00:26:13was diagnosed
00:26:13with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
00:26:15and put on a watch
00:26:16and wait list.
00:26:17He believes that
00:26:17has worked in his favour.
00:26:19He chose to take his health
00:26:20into his own hands.
00:26:22I was satisfied
00:26:23that going
00:26:25the cannabis oil route
00:26:27was not
00:26:27clutching at straws.
00:26:29There's,
00:26:30they call it
00:26:31anecdotal evidence.
00:26:33People have cured
00:26:34themselves,
00:26:35for God's sake.
00:26:36And I hate that.
00:26:38You know,
00:26:38oh, it's just
00:26:38anecdotal evidence.
00:26:40No, it's called evidence.
00:26:42You know,
00:26:42it's good enough
00:26:43for a court.
00:26:44Keith and others
00:26:44I spoke with
00:26:45represent the greatest
00:26:46challenge to mainstream
00:26:47medicine's approach
00:26:48to cancer
00:26:49by treating themselves.
00:26:52In the making
00:26:52of this documentary
00:26:53and while talking
00:26:54with private
00:26:55and NHS doctors,
00:26:56I've heard the same
00:26:57phrase repeated
00:26:58over and over
00:26:59when I've asked them
00:27:00about natural treatments.
00:27:01The response
00:27:02has been the same.
00:27:03That is not what
00:27:04we're taught
00:27:04in medical school.
00:27:07For the last century,
00:27:08it should be noted,
00:27:09medical schools
00:27:10have been closely
00:27:11intertwined
00:27:11with the drug industry.
00:27:13It's hardly a wonder
00:27:14that the teachings
00:27:14are restricted
00:27:15to what is sold
00:27:16by them.
00:27:17More of which later.
00:27:18Natasha had her first
00:27:20diagnosis in 2004.
00:27:22She had surgery
00:27:22known as a lumpectomy
00:27:24on her left breast
00:27:24and a complete
00:27:25lymph node clearance.
00:27:27She followed this
00:27:28with eight weeks
00:27:28of radiotherapy
00:27:29and five years
00:27:30of mainstream drugs.
00:27:32Her cancer returned,
00:27:33this time
00:27:34in her right breast.
00:27:35I didn't want chemotherapy
00:27:37at all.
00:27:39I'd researched,
00:27:40I'd found other
00:27:41alternative natural cures
00:27:44combined with diet,
00:27:46health, lifestyle.
00:27:48I have a pretty good
00:27:49lifestyle
00:27:49and I have a pretty
00:27:50good diet.
00:27:52I cut out sugar,
00:27:54obviously cancer
00:27:55loves sugar,
00:27:56and I cut out dairy.
00:27:57And everything else,
00:28:00I'm pretty healthy
00:28:01and it's copious amounts
00:28:02of vegetables,
00:28:03juicing,
00:28:05shakes,
00:28:07plenty of water,
00:28:08vitamins,
00:28:10supplements,
00:28:11tonics,
00:28:12and cannabis oil,
00:28:14which was the main
00:28:15ingredient.
00:28:17Obviously,
00:28:18I decided to do that
00:28:20and I made that decision
00:28:23and I told them.
00:28:26And the resistance
00:28:26was there still.
00:28:28Dr Elizabeth Thompson
00:28:29trained within the NHS
00:28:30and has seen the advent
00:28:32of what she calls
00:28:33hard scientism
00:28:34in medicine.
00:28:35She's recently been involved
00:28:36in a protracted fight
00:28:37to preserve
00:28:38alternative services
00:28:39within the National
00:28:40Health Service
00:28:40in Bristol.
00:28:42After 70 years
00:28:43of offering patients
00:28:44complementary
00:28:44and natural healing,
00:28:46the funding
00:28:46was stripped completely.
00:28:48I think that we
00:28:49do have a duty
00:28:51as healthcare professionals
00:28:52to really skill up
00:28:55and resource ourselves
00:28:57up on the evidence
00:28:58out there.
00:28:58There is a lot more
00:29:00evidence available
00:29:01across a range
00:29:02of complementary
00:29:03and alternative approaches.
00:29:06It's out there,
00:29:07it's available,
00:29:08but it's still not
00:29:09impacting on a lot
00:29:10of conventional
00:29:11healthcare professionals'
00:29:12minds.
00:29:13Probably a lot of us
00:29:14don't understand
00:29:16or don't even
00:29:17think to question
00:29:18what the doctors
00:29:20say to us.
00:29:21I mean,
00:29:21I have a natural
00:29:24tendency to research
00:29:25anything anyway,
00:29:27so I did read up
00:29:27about it
00:29:28and did decide,
00:29:29yes,
00:29:29okay,
00:29:29there's a long-term
00:29:30potential harm,
00:29:32but there's also
00:29:32a long-term
00:29:33potential benefit,
00:29:34and right now
00:29:35I'm interested
00:29:36in the benefits.
00:29:37Well,
00:29:38you're very well
00:29:38placed to actually
00:29:40answer this next
00:29:41question because
00:29:41you've engaged
00:29:42with the system
00:29:43in two separate
00:29:44decades on this issue,
00:29:47so you're very well
00:29:47placed and that is
00:29:48what do you feel
00:29:50the NHS needs
00:29:51to do in the
00:29:52treatment of cancer
00:29:53patients?
00:29:54I think they have
00:29:55to involve
00:29:56alternative treatments
00:29:57and they have to,
00:29:58they must,
00:29:59and it's our right,
00:30:01they must give
00:30:02people the choice.
00:30:03When I first had it,
00:30:05everything happened
00:30:05so quickly,
00:30:06you get diagnosed
00:30:07and you're just
00:30:08on this bandwagon,
00:30:09you're on this test,
00:30:10that test,
00:30:11you can be at
00:30:11hospital,
00:30:12I was there
00:30:13four times in one
00:30:14week,
00:30:14I had MRIs,
00:30:16CT scans,
00:30:16you don't have
00:30:18time to turn around.
00:30:20I think hospitals,
00:30:22we need a choice
00:30:23and we need someone
00:30:25at the hospital
00:30:26who actually knows
00:30:27about alternative
00:30:28cures that we
00:30:29can discuss this
00:30:31with because quite
00:30:32frankly nobody
00:30:33wants to know.
00:30:34My oncologist,
00:30:36I tried to inform
00:30:38her of certain
00:30:39things or ask
00:30:40or even engage
00:30:41with it and I
00:30:42was getting nothing.
00:30:43The question is
00:30:44why?
00:30:45And all I can do
00:30:46is hazard a guess
00:30:47and I think
00:30:49that the team
00:30:52of surgeons
00:30:53who've been doing
00:30:54this for years
00:30:55and years
00:30:55have got used
00:30:58to these type
00:31:00of procedures
00:31:01and are not
00:31:08looking for anything
00:31:08new.
00:31:10I think that's it.
00:31:11I've tried to,
00:31:12in my own mind,
00:31:12work out what
00:31:13had happened
00:31:14and my only
00:31:15example would be
00:31:16in the First
00:31:18World War,
00:31:19why were they
00:31:19still using horses?
00:31:21You know,
00:31:22and there would
00:31:22have been people
00:31:24adamantly arguing
00:31:26with the horses
00:31:26the way forward
00:31:27that you'd say,
00:31:28but there's rifles,
00:31:29you can pick them
00:31:29off at 400 yards
00:31:30and it's still,
00:31:32you know,
00:31:32this whole body
00:31:33of generals
00:31:34would hold
00:31:35to this thing
00:31:36and you couldn't
00:31:36move them.
00:31:37it's a little
00:31:38bit like that.
00:31:39Tradition
00:31:39has held
00:31:42the group,
00:31:43I think.
00:31:44I think.
00:31:45You know,
00:31:45there are
00:31:46very good teams
00:31:48of surgeons
00:31:49and oncologists
00:31:50always wanting
00:31:52to minimize
00:31:53any harmful
00:31:55intervention,
00:31:55but over the
00:31:58years,
00:31:59there are
00:32:00often lots
00:32:00of treatments
00:32:01and if people,
00:32:03for example,
00:32:04want to have
00:32:05a lumpectomy
00:32:06but not to
00:32:08go on to
00:32:09chemotherapy,
00:32:11sometimes that's
00:32:12difficult for them
00:32:13to say,
00:32:14actually,
00:32:14I don't want
00:32:15chemotherapy
00:32:15and the research
00:32:16is quite confusing
00:32:18sometimes.
00:32:18The one thing
00:32:19we do mention
00:32:21is iatrogenics.
00:32:23Now,
00:32:23iatrogenics
00:32:24means really
00:32:25death by
00:32:26doctoring.
00:32:28I hate to mention
00:32:29this but
00:32:29I feel obliged
00:32:31to.
00:32:32But doctors
00:32:33do mis-prescribe
00:32:36drugs,
00:32:36they over-prescribe
00:32:37drugs,
00:32:38the adverse
00:32:39effects of drugs,
00:32:40infections in
00:32:41hospitals,
00:32:42surgery going
00:32:43on.
00:32:43Humans are
00:32:44incredible.
00:32:45In the last
00:32:4530 years alone,
00:32:46we've managed
00:32:47to create and
00:32:48operate a
00:32:48system that is
00:32:49so technologically
00:32:50advanced we can
00:32:51communicate with
00:32:52people in the
00:32:53farthest reaches of
00:32:54our world by just
00:32:54sitting in front of
00:32:55a screen.
00:32:56Our healthcare
00:32:57system is so
00:32:58accomplished we
00:32:59can operate on
00:33:00bodies without even
00:33:01fully opening them
00:33:02up in the first
00:33:03place.
00:33:04Yet cancer,
00:33:05it seems,
00:33:05is not only smarter
00:33:06than us but more
00:33:07robust too for no
00:33:08matter our advances
00:33:09technologically or
00:33:11medically, we have
00:33:12not, so we are
00:33:13told, found a cure
00:33:14for cancer.
00:33:15But is that right?
00:33:16This is Keith Mann,
00:33:18a former member of
00:33:19the uncompromising
00:33:20animal defence
00:33:20group, the
00:33:21Animal Liberation
00:33:22Front.
00:33:23Keith was
00:33:23diagnosed with
00:33:24cancer following
00:33:25several stints in
00:33:26prison for his
00:33:26animal activism.
00:33:28He believes he's
00:33:29cured his cancer.
00:33:31I'm so proud of
00:33:32this and for
00:33:33anybody who's
00:33:33cynical and thinks
00:33:35this is just
00:33:35another one of
00:33:36those crazy
00:33:36conspiracy theories
00:33:37that he comes
00:33:38out with about
00:33:39being able to
00:33:39cure cancer
00:33:40naturally, well
00:33:41it's littered
00:33:42with scientific
00:33:43evidence.
00:33:44There are over
00:33:45300 references
00:33:46of this book.
00:33:47Keith used the
00:33:48Vega diagnostic
00:33:48system to
00:33:49determine the
00:33:50protocol that his
00:33:51body needed for
00:33:52healing.
00:33:53So, this is a
00:33:55Vega diagnostic
00:33:55system, this is
00:33:56brilliant, I mean
00:33:57this just opened up
00:33:58the whole kind of
00:33:59world for us.
00:34:00It's an
00:34:01electromagnetic
00:34:01energy monitoring
00:34:03device and you
00:34:04basically hold the
00:34:05power in one hand
00:34:06and it reads the
00:34:07electrical circuit in
00:34:08your body and you
00:34:09can program it to
00:34:09any area of your
00:34:10body and it is
00:34:12spot on.
00:34:13it picks up
00:34:14everything I have
00:34:15going on with it.
00:34:16It can read cancer.
00:34:17And as my cancer
00:34:19has receded over
00:34:20the next year, the
00:34:22machine responded
00:34:23accordingly and I
00:34:24required less of it
00:34:25and it went down
00:34:26from each time we
00:34:27go back for a
00:34:27further test, I'd
00:34:28require three less
00:34:29of these doses
00:34:32for vitamin C for
00:34:32example, 15,000
00:34:34IU at the peak of
00:34:34cancer growth.
00:34:35I went back three
00:34:36months later when
00:34:37the cancer had
00:34:37started to recede.
00:34:39The machine said
00:34:3911 but again
00:34:40three months later
00:34:41down to nine.
00:34:42And now I'm down
00:34:43to one.
00:34:44So it's a very
00:34:45useful tool for us
00:34:46to guide the amount
00:34:47of supplements that
00:34:48I required for my
00:34:50body.
00:34:51Keith is now clear
00:34:52of cancer.
00:34:53His doctor issued
00:34:54him with this
00:34:54extraordinary letter
00:34:55in which he says
00:34:56he acknowledged no
00:34:57symptoms and normal
00:34:58blood count and no
00:34:59intervention was
00:35:00necessary.
00:35:01So, will Keith's
00:35:02cancer come back?
00:35:03Difficult to say for
00:35:04while we certainly
00:35:05know that cancer does
00:35:06return after allopathic
00:35:08treatment, what we
00:35:09don't know is whether
00:35:10it comes back after
00:35:11natural treatment because
00:35:12the data is simply
00:35:13not there.
00:35:14I tried to get it but
00:35:15no establishing body
00:35:16appeared to have it.
00:35:17I tried cancer
00:35:18charities, organisations
00:35:19within the health
00:35:20establishment and even
00:35:21our government's own
00:35:22Department for Health
00:35:23and Social Care whose
00:35:24role it is to oversee
00:35:26our health service.
00:35:27The result was a
00:35:28failure.
00:35:29The Department for
00:35:30Health had to admit
00:35:30they had none of the
00:35:31information I sought
00:35:33including questions
00:35:34pertaining to the
00:35:34main three treatments
00:35:35allowed by the
00:35:36government which frankly
00:35:38is poor service for a
00:35:39governing body of our
00:35:40health system and the
00:35:41users of it and why
00:35:43do we need to have
00:35:44conventional evidence in
00:35:45order to have natural
00:35:46treatments recognised.
00:35:47Yes we do now live in a
00:35:49society and I mention it in
00:35:50my book about how the
00:35:52corporate entities of the
00:35:54world that dominate the
00:35:55pharmaceutical industry
00:35:57essentially came like a
00:35:58thief in the night and
00:35:59stole all their knowledge
00:36:00because prior to us
00:36:02believing everything that
00:36:04corporations did was
00:36:06gospel and truthful we
00:36:08simply knew as a society
00:36:11and as humanity we simply
00:36:13knew that things work.
00:36:14For many many years we
00:36:15didn't need to know how
00:36:17it was that they work.
00:36:18We knew that something
00:36:19worked in the same
00:36:21respect of where cannabis
00:36:22is going now when the
00:36:24doctor tells someone that
00:36:25the cannabis is not
00:36:26working but yet your
00:36:27child is not having 250
00:36:28seizures a day.
00:36:29We are observing that.
00:36:31More on this later.
00:36:33Cancer is a business of
00:36:34that there is no doubt.
00:36:36Perhaps the success of
00:36:37cancer and by that I mean
00:36:38from the perspective of how
00:36:40widespread it now is is
00:36:41most visible by the
00:36:42amount of charities it
00:36:43has in its name.
00:36:45These charities are the
00:36:46public face of the
00:36:47cancer industry and what
00:36:49a face they are on every
00:36:50high street calling us in
00:36:52and convincing us that
00:36:53with our participation we
00:36:55can rid the world of this
00:36:56cancer sooner.
00:36:58The Charity Commission
00:36:59whose responsibility is to
00:37:00regulate registered
00:37:01charities in the UK lists
00:37:03over 1100 cancer
00:37:04charities that have
00:37:05functioned at one stage.
00:37:07Note that is only
00:37:08registered charities.
00:37:10What isn't so easy to
00:37:11ascertaining is the full
00:37:12total of people and
00:37:13organisations currently
00:37:14fundraising and accruing
00:37:16funds under the guise of
00:37:17cancer.
00:37:18It's really, really hard
00:37:20to put into words.
00:37:21It's all money, money,
00:37:24money, money and it's all
00:37:26coming in because I worked
00:37:27in the cash room as well
00:37:28banking the money, I'd
00:37:31count the money, I'd
00:37:31bank the money and you're
00:37:33talking about thousands of
00:37:35pounds coming in each day.
00:37:37It's coming in from
00:37:38funerals because the
00:37:40families feel they'll do
00:37:42donate the money to the
00:37:43hospice because they've
00:37:44obviously been tapped to
00:37:45the loved one and there's
00:37:47literally thousands of
00:37:48pounds coming in each day.
00:37:51Looking at the Charity
00:37:52Commission website and the
00:37:53chances are you won't have
00:37:54heard of most of these but
00:37:55they are attached to a
00:37:56number of organisations
00:37:57including hospitals and
00:37:58universities.
00:38:00They can't all be needed in
00:38:01the cancer war can they?
00:38:03And anyway, why does cancer
00:38:05require so many charities when
00:38:06the behemoth of them all
00:38:08exists?
00:38:09For the fact remains, big or
00:38:11small, none of the charities
00:38:12are in the same league as the
00:38:14juggernaut of all cancer
00:38:15charities, Cancer Research
00:38:17UK.
00:38:18Formed in 2002 after two
00:38:20charities merged, Crook
00:38:22became the new grab and go
00:38:23title for what was once the
00:38:25Cancer Research Campaign and
00:38:26the Imperial Cancer Research
00:38:28Fund.
00:38:29It is the world's largest
00:38:30independently funded cancer
00:38:32research organisation.
00:38:34It receives no government
00:38:35funding and is supported most
00:38:37visibly but not exclusively by
00:38:39the public.
00:38:40Crook is a powerhouse.
00:38:42Its tentacles spread far and
00:38:44wide in science, academia,
00:38:46medicine and within the drug
00:38:47companies.
00:38:48Crook's researchers have been
00:38:49credited with the discovery and
00:38:51development of clinically
00:38:52approved drugs.
00:38:54Crook's chief executive,
00:38:55Michelle Mitchell, is a
00:38:56stalwart of the corporate
00:38:58charity field and commands the
00:38:59salary of £244,000.
00:39:01Still, these corporate CEOs are
00:39:04apparently worth it and the
00:39:05figure speak for themselves.
00:39:07For the year 2017 to 2018,
00:39:10Crook raised well in excess of
00:39:12£600 million.
00:39:14Primarily, that was achieved when
00:39:16Mitchell's predecessor, Harpal
00:39:17Kumar, was at the helm.
00:39:20He too commanded the same quarter
00:39:22of a million pounds salary as
00:39:23Mitchell.
00:39:24Harpal Kumar left Crook in June
00:39:262018 to take up residence at
00:39:28Johnson & Johnson.
00:39:30Some may consider Johnson &
00:39:31Johnson an odd choice for
00:39:33someone who had spent the
00:39:34previous 15 years fighting to
00:39:35cure cancer.
00:39:36It smells nice.
00:39:38Try some.
00:39:39Currently, almost 12,000 people
00:39:41are suing Johnson & Johnson,
00:39:42claiming the talcum powder gave
00:39:44them cancer too.
00:39:45So then, a curious step for
00:39:47Kumar or just a regular move?
00:39:49Alas, as we shall see, the
00:39:50charity and drug giants are part
00:39:52of a carousel.
00:39:53A similar swing door policy that
00:39:55exists between media and
00:39:56politicians, it's that same
00:39:58poacher-turned-gamekeeper
00:39:59approach that functions within
00:40:00the cancer industry.
00:40:02Cancer charities are at the
00:40:04heart of the cancer industry and
00:40:05the success of their marketing
00:40:06campaigns should not be
00:40:08underestimated.
00:40:09My dad was a really brave man.
00:40:11He was inspiring because then
00:40:13he was told that he was going
00:40:15to die.
00:40:16Cancer fundraising promotion is
00:40:17designed not just to pluck at
00:40:19your heartstrings, but to put
00:40:20them in a headlock and leave you
00:40:21feeling unworthy and despairing if
00:40:23you don't contribute to raising
00:40:24funds.
00:40:25Millions of us have felt the
00:40:26pull.
00:40:27I even raise money for cancer
00:40:28research's race for life where I
00:40:30proudly ran around an old army
00:40:32base, in memory of my stepfather.
00:40:35Undoubtedly, Crux adverts are
00:40:36designed to devastate and
00:40:38frequently feature those with
00:40:39cancer.
00:40:40For many people, this is further
00:40:41exploitation of the cancer
00:40:43patient at the hands of the
00:40:44cancer industry.
00:40:47Celebrities are the stock in
00:40:48trade for any good cancer
00:40:49appeal.
00:40:50Surely, after all these years and
00:40:51billions of pounds raised, why
00:40:53are these celebrities not asking
00:40:54why cancer is on the increase?
00:40:56Crook, like many of the corporate
00:40:58cancer charities, rely on many
00:40:59figures and statistics to oil their
00:41:01fundraising machinery.
00:41:02We're told that by 2030, more
00:41:04people than ever before will be
00:41:06diagnosed with cancer.
00:41:07But don't worry, because three and
00:41:09four people who get it will
00:41:10survive it.
00:41:11But what does that mean in real
00:41:13terms?
00:41:14These figures, which our analysis
00:41:16showed, are frequently
00:41:17contradictory, generating people
00:41:19even more of an impetus to
00:41:21contribute to ridding our society
00:41:22of cancer, a stronger campaign to
00:41:25motivate people into action you
00:41:26could seldom have.
00:41:30Crook is responsible for drawing
00:41:31in huge funds over a half a
00:41:33billion pounds last year alone and
00:41:35distributing them to a rabbit
00:41:36warren of research organisations
00:41:38around the country, and have been
00:41:40doing so for decades.
00:41:42The question is, what are all these
00:41:43people doing in their increasingly
00:41:45well-equipped laboratories?
00:41:46They're all looking for the same
00:41:47thing, that one cure for cancer.
00:41:50What would happen to Crook and all
00:41:51who rely on the terrific income the
00:41:53charity brings in, if they found it?
00:41:56But there's a further outstanding
00:41:57question.
00:41:58Given that cancer is treated with
00:42:00different drugs, depending on which
00:42:02part of the body it's to be found,
00:42:04how can one cure, according to
00:42:06mainstream medicine's own plan,
00:42:08fit all?
00:42:09You see, I have this opinion that I
00:42:12don't look at cancer as being
00:42:16different around the body.
00:42:19We have all these specialists,
00:42:20oncologists, for certain areas of
00:42:22cancer around the body, and I think
00:42:25that's really strange.
00:42:27The body's breaking down somewhere.
00:42:30It tends to be more or less about
00:42:32all the same reasons why that's
00:42:36happening.
00:42:37And so you treat the body
00:42:40holistically.
00:42:42Oncology treats the symptoms of
00:42:43cancer, which is the tumour.
00:42:46They don't treat the cause of
00:42:48cancer.
00:42:49They rarely talk about the cause of
00:42:50cancer.
00:42:51They say they don't know.
00:42:53Or it's beyond their brief.
00:42:57Crook is a receptive charity to the
00:42:59wares of the pharmaceutical industry,
00:43:01and there's no doubt that big
00:43:02industry benefit immeasurably by
00:43:04linking with public engagement
00:43:05companies like Cancer Research UK.
00:43:08Equally, there's no getting away from
00:43:10the decades-old and fundamental power
00:43:12of the drug companies within our
00:43:13society, and the stranglehold is no
00:43:15different within the world's leading
00:43:17cancer research charity.
00:43:19Over the years, Crook's trustees have
00:43:20frequently been drawn from private
00:43:22healthcare and drug industries, as
00:43:24well as technology and machinery.
00:43:26In fact, all areas of industry that
00:43:28contribute to creating carcinogenic
00:43:30environments.
00:43:32And yet, when I ask Crook to tell me
00:43:34what they're doing in the way of
00:43:35research regarding the impact our
00:43:3721st century environment is having on
00:43:39our growing cancer population, a press
00:43:41officer sent me links to a study that
00:43:43was eight years old.
00:43:45There is no doubt that there are
00:43:47substantial conflicts of interest at
00:43:48Cancer Research UK, and the public have
00:43:51a right to know.
00:43:52The influence to continue using cancer
00:43:54treatments and variations of the same
00:43:56that are known to be detrimental to
00:43:58patients is clear.
00:44:00Even a cursory glance at 2019's list of
00:44:03trustees makes the conflict obvious.
00:44:06Peter Chombray is one example.
00:44:08While he sits on the Crook board, he also
00:44:10works for iMatics Biotechnologies, who
00:44:13are currently engaged in developing new
00:44:15cancer treatments with an emphasis on
00:44:17a cancer vaccine.
00:44:19David Lindsell is another Crook trustee.
00:44:21For the past decade, since 2008, he's
00:44:23been a director at Drax, the smart
00:44:25technology company behind the national
00:44:27rollout of smart meters, another area
00:44:30that researchers are deeply concerned
00:44:32about in our growing cancer population.
00:44:34How can Crook justify having people on
00:44:37board whose business is either dependent
00:44:39on the continuation of sick people, or
00:44:41are involved with creating toxic and
00:44:43carcinogenic environments?
00:44:45The conflict couldn't be clearer.
00:44:49Registered as a charity, Crook also has a
00:44:51commercialisation arm where they are
00:44:53involved in funding thousands of clinical
00:44:55trials up to the point that they can hand
00:44:56them over to whichever drug company they've
00:44:58been working with, for future royalties of
00:45:00course.
00:45:01So, that hardly makes a charity independent
00:45:04to explore all options outside of mainstream
00:45:06drugs and treatments.
00:45:08In the current year, 2019, Cancer Research UK
00:45:11is committed to expanding its engagement with
00:45:13radiation and clinical trials with the aim of
00:45:15bringing more cancer drugs to market.
00:45:18Surely Crook's vast contributing public have a
00:45:20right to have all potential treatments explored,
00:45:23not just those which are produced by the
00:45:25pharmaceutical giants and whose feet are under
00:45:28the Cancer Research UK table.
00:45:30But, there's more that is deeply concerning
00:45:32about the world's number one cancer research
00:45:35organisation.
00:45:43And what are these charitable activities?
00:45:45Well, this includes lobbying politicians,
00:45:48raising awareness to cancer and providing
00:45:50information to the public, and the website.
00:45:53I've worked with a number of respected cancer
00:45:55researchers to examine the information that
00:45:57is presented by Cancer Research UK.
00:46:00The overall opinion is that this is a very
00:46:02poor quality of information on the Crook
00:46:05website.
00:46:06There is very little in the way of cancer
00:46:08prevention advice, and I know that they are
00:46:10a research company, but nonetheless, the
00:46:13nutritional advice was deemed atrocious by
00:46:15our researchers.
00:46:16Here's one example of Cancer Research UK being
00:46:19wide of the mark when it comes to serving
00:46:21the public who fund them.
00:46:23The World Health Organisation has been
00:46:24uncompromising in its stance that bacon and other
00:46:27processed meats have carcinogenic properties, and
00:46:29yet Cancer Research UK merely tell people to limit
00:46:32their daily intake to three slices.
00:46:35It's a shocking dereliction of duty.
00:46:38The overriding factor we discovered with Cancer Research UK,
00:46:42as with most cancer charities, is the level of victim
00:46:45blaming.
00:46:46You are the problem, and you better know it.
00:46:49With Cancer Research UK, there is massive corporate
00:46:52interest at stake in not naming the elephant in the room.
00:46:56Do cancer charities blame water companies for
00:46:58fluoridating our water?
00:47:00Or chemical organisations like Monsanto?
00:47:03Do they blame phone masks, Wi-Fi's, mobile phones?
00:47:07Not only do they not, but Crook regularly puts up
00:47:10robust defence when these products are linked to cancer.
00:47:13But our criticisms of Cancer Research UK did not end at their
00:47:18poor nutritional advice, questionable spending in the search
00:47:22for one cure, obscene salary for the CEO, but at their flagrant
00:47:26and blatant promotion of e-cigarettes.
00:47:30Now, e-cigarettes and the promotion of them is something of a problem
00:47:33for Cancer Research UK, and this became clear to me during a
00:47:37telephone conversation with the charity's press officer.
00:47:39Crook states its aim and intention regarding smoking is to eliminate
00:47:45cigarette smoking completely.
00:47:47However, Crook's position on e-cigarettes is muddled, although they
00:47:50have invested millions in researching them.
00:47:53E-cigarettes contain formaldehyde, which was first classified as a
00:47:56probable human carcinogen in 1987.
00:48:00Looking at Crook's website, and it's difficult to tell whether the
00:48:03inclusion of e-cigarettes is an advert or a public relations piece.
00:48:06Either way, there's no doubt that Crook is being seen to promote e-cigarettes,
00:48:11despite even the Lancet, the medical bible, decrying the electronic device
00:48:16without compromise.
00:48:18Naturally, I felt that Cancer Research UK had a great deal to answer for,
00:48:22given the immense public support it enjoys.
00:48:25PR at Crook was not impressed with my aims.
00:48:28She said our report was not what they were used to dealing with.
00:48:31Normally, she informed me.
00:48:32Mainstream media interviews she organises are done with upfront agreements
00:48:35about what will be discussed in the interview.
00:48:38It's easy to see why cancer charities have been getting away with it for so long,
00:48:42when our media is so compliant.
00:48:45There is absolutely no doubt about the unhealthy codependent relationship
00:48:49that exists between the pharmaceutical giants, the medical industry and the cancer
00:48:53charities.
00:48:55Cancer, despite all the profiteering that arises from it, is of significant public interest.
00:49:00Not just in terms of who gets it, but also the fact that we're paying to treat it.
00:49:04Which, for an average cancer diagnosis in 2018, amounted to £30,000 per person in the UK.
00:49:11The total bill for the year, for diagnosis and treatment, was a whopping £9.4 billion.
00:49:18Private healthcare company Bupa's report of this claims that the next few years is going to see
00:49:23an increase by some 62%, bumping up the cancer bill per year to a stunning £15.3 billion by 2021.
00:49:33That's a phenomenal £40,000 per person, and much of that money is paid to the pharmaceutical
00:49:38and machine giants who supply the authorised treatments.
00:49:41It's vital to note that pharma giants do not have clean hands when it comes to delivering
00:49:45meticulous and problem-free healthcare.
00:49:47In fact, the major drug corporations have all taken financial hits.
00:49:52Now, medicine has become completely corrupted by big pharma.
00:49:56What do big pharma want?
00:49:58They want profits for shareholders.
00:49:59They don't want cures for patients.
00:50:01And it is a policy of big pharma to treat conditions with symptom-suppressing drugs.
00:50:09Why?
00:50:10It makes lots of money for big pharma.
00:50:12And then they have other symptoms and side effects as a result of those drugs, which require
00:50:16more drugs.
00:50:17And worse than that, symptom suppression is a very dangerous intervention because we have
00:50:23symptoms for very good reasons.
00:50:25Symptoms protect us from ourselves.
00:50:27But whether natural or medical, all practitioners must be careful to adhere to the 1939 Cancer
00:50:34Act.
00:50:35The only thing that really remains of any use from the Act is Section 4, which is entitled
00:50:40Prohibition of Certain Advertisements.
00:50:43And these advertisements basically are to do with people being prohibited from advertising
00:50:50either services or indeed advice about cancer treatment.
00:50:54So it seems to me that looking at this particular Act, whilst obviously alternative treatments
00:51:00potentially are available and will be out there, it tends to make it difficult for you
00:51:05to broadcast if there are alternative methods of treatment out there.
00:51:09That's what it does.
00:51:10It's quite interesting to see that if one, there is a sort of official line preserved
00:51:13by the Act in the sense that if you go about it in what I suppose would be deemed
00:51:17the right way, you may create a marvellous treatment or indeed may have advice for people about cancer.
00:51:24But what you can't do is just broadcast it out there.
00:51:27You can't put it in a tabloid.
00:51:28You can't put it in a mainstream newspaper.
00:51:30What you would have to do, and there almost seems to be a little pathway if you read it,
00:51:33is to, for example, make a pamphlet up.
00:51:36And if you make a pamphlet up or indeed you put an article somewhere that certain group
00:51:42of individuals are likely to see it and nobody else, then that's okay.
00:51:45So, for example, the Lancet might be somewhere because it's in a medical practitioner's journal
00:51:51or a pamphlet circulated in the House of Parliament, for example, arguably is certainly fine on
00:51:56the defences because the group of people that you can effectively advertise to are members
00:52:01of the House of Parliament, local authority members, what they're described as voluntary hospitals,
00:52:07but also registered practitioners, so doctors, nurses and pharmacists.
00:52:11So the thing that seems to be most interesting about it is, were one to have a wonderful
00:52:16treat for cancer, how would people know?
00:52:19And this Act does tend to sort of stop that.
00:52:21So what are the potential cures that are being held back by the Cancer Act?
00:52:25Well, cannabis oil is an obvious one, because cannabis still carries too much stigma.
00:52:30That's what happens when something has been subject to a brilliantly impressive propaganda
00:52:34campaign.
00:52:35So significant has been the demonisation of cannabis that as recent as 2014, I got a wake-up
00:52:40call.
00:52:41After almost three decades in media and two decades as a broadcaster, both for TV and
00:52:46radio, I was reprimanded by the broadcasting industry watchdog, Ofcom.
00:52:51Ofcom decided, based on one complaint only, that I had abused the industry charter by promoting
00:52:56cannabis.
00:52:57In fact, what I had done was write and present an internet show about people who were involved
00:53:02with healing themselves and they were using cannabis to do it.
00:53:05I hadn't, as I had been accused, promoted cannabis.
00:53:08I fought the complaint I lost.
00:53:10With hindsight, I realised it was true.
00:53:13I did break the Ofcom rule and I don't regret it.
00:53:15Archaic thinking is an enemy of journalism and I'm happy to challenge that.
00:53:20Nonetheless, the stigma of treating ourselves with anything from nature remains a constant
00:53:24fear for some people.
00:53:25Well, and there's a reason for that.
00:53:27Natural remedies were demonised in the 1930s by the increasingly powerful drug companies
00:53:31and as with all strong propaganda campaigns, it's still easy to conjure up the spectre almost
00:53:36a century later.
00:53:38But potential natural treatments are far from restricted to cannabis.
00:53:41Let me ask you this.
00:53:43What does GCMAF mean to you?
00:53:45And would you be surprised that a man has recently been imprisoned for supplying science-based
00:53:49medicine to people with a number of illnesses and disorders, including cancer?
00:53:55GCMAF, a protein that some claim has natural healing properties for an assortment of medical
00:53:59disorders and has been the source of much online debate for the last decade or so.
00:54:04However, in recent times, it's come to more prominence.
00:54:07And this man, David Noakes, is currently serving a custodial sentence of one year plus for treating
00:54:13people with it.
00:54:13We got from 5% success with terminal stage 4 cancer to 77% success with terminal stage 4
00:54:25cancer as a result of experience in our own clinics.
00:54:31So, who is he?
00:54:32Well, he's a charlatan with bad science.
00:54:34If you listen to a number of cancer charities and government agencies, or a saint, if you
00:54:38listen to his supporters, this is Ian R. Crane, a long-time activist on the alternative
00:54:43media circuit.
00:54:44He was at Noakes' November 2018 court trial.
00:54:47Because the judge constantly made reference to the fact that GCMAF was not on trial.
00:54:57And in fact, yesterday, as he started his sentencing statement, he said, this is a court of law.
00:55:08It is not GCMAF, which is on trial.
00:55:12But then he went on to say, and I think this is very, very significant.
00:55:16I believe that the medicine, GCMAF, is and will be beneficial to people who need this treatment.
00:55:26So, GCMAF, well, it's a protein that we produce.
00:55:29It's natural, which may explain some of the problems that have ensued since David Noakes
00:55:33proudly said he was healing cancer patients with it.
00:55:36Interestingly, despite it being contrary to the Cancer Act, he wasn't prosecuted under that.
00:55:41He was prosecuted for selling unlicensed medicines.
00:55:45Now, the problem with GCMAF for the established medical order is it's not something that is
00:55:49easily dismissed.
00:55:51For starters, there exist those much-cherished scientific papers to back it up.
00:55:57But the fact remains, where is the harm in GCMAF being explored?
00:56:01Why has it created something of a panic within the establishment that it's considered appropriate
00:56:06for the government to issue a press release that's still available on their website, which
00:56:10reads as if it was written for a tabloid newspaper?
00:56:14But there was more rejoicing at Noakes' imprisonment.
00:56:17The MHRA released a bizarre video metaphorically beating their chests about it.
00:56:22So, what is this clear reluctance which we have seen repeatedly throughout this report for
00:56:26the health establishment to pursue natural treatments when dealing with cancer?
00:56:31Dr. Shireen Lakhani, trained in general medicine in the National Health Service, she now works
00:56:35in private aesthetics and has found a solution to the deep and unspoken problems many
00:56:40women suffer after having chemotherapy, that of serious intimacy issues.
00:56:45Dr. Lakhani specialises in the O-Shot, a natural process that involves drawing blood from one
00:56:50part of our body and injecting it into the clitoris to succeed stimulation for cancer patients.
00:56:56The problem is that the NHS won't put money into researching it.
00:57:02It's not a drug. It can't be patented, so the drug companies won't put money into researching
00:57:08it either. So, we're not going to get the trials that you get with standard drugs on these
00:57:15sorts of treatments. What we have is case studies. It's not robust, but actually I've treated
00:57:22enough patients to know, yes, it does work in the majority of people.
00:57:25They can't get a patent on it. It's natural. And they need their patent to actually protect
00:57:31them for 20 years, to ensure they get as much money out of that one drug as they can.
00:57:36Why are they still producing new drugs almost every year for cancer treatment, for chemotherapy?
00:57:42Because their 20 year periods of older drugs are coming to their end. So they need new drugs
00:57:49all the time to keep their 20 year defence of their income. And it's just, it's criminal
00:57:58what is really happening.
00:58:00Neither are we talking insignificant sums here as the pharmaceutical giants are playing
00:58:04with big money and so the returns need to exceed that. For 2017 alone, GlaxoSmithKline,
00:58:10based in West London, shelled out £3.9 billion on their vaccine programme alone. A huge volume
00:58:18of vaccines will need to be sold and given in order to justify such a spend. No wonder
00:58:23vaccine use has increased exponentially since my childhood. Vaccines for many are viewed
00:58:29as a worrying contributing factor to cancer. Keith Mann is in no doubt that his cancer came
00:58:34from the polio vaccinations programme started in the fifties.
00:58:39It came up. Vaccine stress, which threw me a little bit because I had only ever had one
00:58:44and my mum reminded me of this, that I had one when I was one. And it was the polio vaccine
00:58:47and I didn't respond well to it. So she never took me for any more. So when it flew up vaccine
00:58:52stress, we went further into the system as you can do and asked where is the vaccine stress?
00:58:56And it said it was in my lymphatic system. Well that flawed me because that's where my cancer
00:59:00was.
00:59:01So in the polio vaccine, which is polio is an enterovirus, in the polio vaccine, there was a
00:59:09virus called SV40, Simeon virus 40. And that since the fifties has been associated with lung cancer
00:59:19and things like that. The WHO, the World Health Organization, literally admits these adventitious
00:59:29agents. The World Health Organization, which acts as a barometer holding nations to a health
00:59:34standard, has publicly stated that up to 70% of cancers are preventable. Many cancer researchers
00:59:40believe the true figure is higher and are critical of WHO's victim blaming and lack of holding corporate
00:59:45considerations in matters of medicine to account. And none more so than when it comes to WHO's support
00:59:51of the products of the pharmaceutical industry, including its vaccine output, of which the HPV
00:59:57vaccine remains a justifiably controversial one.
01:00:00The Director General of WHO has been uncompromising in his support of the HPV vaccine, even going
01:00:06so far as to make a speech about how he wants all women and girls in the world to receive
01:00:10it. But what about the known problems attached to HPV? And is he misleading people by his claims
01:00:16of what the HPV vaccine is for?
01:00:18I contacted WHO. I wanted to know whether the chief executive had listened to voices who were
01:00:22critical of the HPV vaccine from academics to journalists, parents to those who have been
01:00:28damaged by it. The very pleasant executive in the media room gave me a bunch of links
01:00:32to go through. He didn't answer my questions, either from himself or from the Director General,
01:00:36whose actions primarily my questions were addressed towards. The journalist, Christina England,
01:00:42has serious reservations about the HPV vaccine, which she believes is marketed incorrectly and leads
01:00:48girls and women to believe they are protected against cervical cancer when they are not. The
01:00:53HPV vaccine is designed only to protect against the human papillomavirus, which is entirely different.
01:01:01If a parent was looking into the vaccine, what would you recommend them to do before
01:01:07having their child vaccinated with a HPV vaccination?
01:01:10Well, this raises an important point, because I have a colleague, inverted commas here at Keele University,
01:01:16who recently published a paper about what parents thought about their boys receiving the HPV vaccine.
01:01:27And she did some sort of survey, actually funded by the Webcom Trust Me on Belief,
01:01:34where she looked, she essentially asked parents,
01:01:38do you think it is a good idea, not only for your daughter to receive the HPV vaccine,
01:01:44but also for your son? And the overwhelming, apparently, reply to this was, yes, of course,
01:01:50why not? It just seems like a great idea. So then I asked, after this paper was published, I asked the
01:01:56question online, what information was given to the parents about possible serious adverse events of
01:02:05relating to this vaccine? The answer from Sue Sherman, the psychologist doing the study,
01:02:12was they were not told anything about this. They were not given, for example, the patient information
01:02:21leaflet, which comes with every vaccine. So listen, you don't have to listen to Chris Exley, who seems to
01:02:26be against the HPV vaccine, to acknowledge that the HPV vaccine is associated with a wide range of
01:02:35serious adverse events, because Merp, who make the vaccine, acknowledge that in the patient information
01:02:42leaflet. There is a list of serious adverse events relating from numbness in the arm,
01:02:48all the way through to death and encephalitis and death. Now, if parents knew that one in 50 recipients,
01:03:01one in 50 recipients of the HPV vaccine will get ill following it, and that illness can be anything from
01:03:10a debilitating illness like, you know, paralysis of the arm through to death, would they then think
01:03:18that taking a vaccine, taking something when you're perfectly healthy, is worth it or not? And would
01:03:25these results have been the same? I was in vaccine court recently, and they showed a film of me saying
01:03:36cervical cancer isn't a public health threat, but the Gardasil vaccine is. And this was in a court for a
01:03:44little girl who had been injured. I put out a journalist request for anyone with personal
01:03:50experiences of HPV. I asked for one case book. I got 30. Damning stories of what had happened to
01:03:56young people after they were given the HPV vaccine. Critics say there is no proof yet that the vaccines
01:04:02caused the illnesses, but as there is no test to prove whether or not the vaccine is responsible,
01:04:06it would seem to be a misleading statement. There's also no proof that the vaccine so far
01:04:11has prevented a single case of cervical cancer. You may be asking at this point,
01:04:16why aren't more doctors speaking out? Well, therein lies a further problem for patients as
01:04:21drug companies have been influencing medical schools for decades. There is much debate amongst
01:04:25doctors about colleagues who are more susceptible to further inducements of the drug corporations,
01:04:31be that free lunches, free samples, or free trips. In terms of the GMC, you've obviously been under
01:04:37the evening end of the GMC a number of times really, and it doesn't seem to stop you. You seem to just
01:04:42carry on flowing through really. If my actions were determined by what the establishment wanted me to
01:04:50do, then I'd be a very different doctor. The reason I left the NHS after 20 years working as an NHS GP
01:04:56is I felt I didn't have the resources I needed to be a good doctor. In fact, as a GP, I had my
01:05:05wrists slapped because my prescribing budget was so low. I didn't spend enough money on drugs,
01:05:10and that made me a bad doctor. There is not a significant dividing line between pharma giants
01:05:15and our nation's health, as the drug companies remain the biggest investor in drug trials and
01:05:20getting drugs to market. And the big money spinners now, of course, are in cancer, in heart disease,
01:05:27in dementia, that's one on the horizon. They're making fortunes from vaccinations because they're
01:05:32getting the best of both worlds. They're making a fortune in making people sick, and then making
01:05:36a second fortune in giving further drugs to apparently treat these degenerative conditions.
01:05:43So, who should step in and sort out these clear conflicts between patient care
01:05:48and corporate greed? Politicians, perhaps? You'll be lucky. In 2012, I, along with thousands of
01:05:54others, campaigned against proposed new changes to laws that governed healthcare in the UK.
01:05:59We lost, and for the first time since the National Health Service had started in the 40s,
01:06:03our coalition government, led by David Cameron, removed the responsibility for the health of
01:06:08citizens from the Secretary of State for Health. Doctors and nurses were up in arms. The new act was
01:06:14frightening on many fronts. It was unquestionably about a more privatised health service. The
01:06:20amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill were treasonous and a betrayal of the people. The
01:06:25conflicts of the Lords and MPs involved in the voting process were enormous. Over 300 of the voters had
01:06:32interests in private healthcare companies. Members of Parliament equally have involvements with the
01:06:37drug giants that are contrary to their roles of representing the British public. The conflict
01:06:42between drug giants, politicians and the medical industry could not be more clear, and year on year
01:06:49the stakes get higher. So yes, we have far to go in our fight against cancer, but we're not going to
01:06:55get there by using the same outdated rules or approaches that helped create our cancer pandemic
01:07:01in the first place. It's not enough to highlight problems without seeking a solution to them,
01:07:06so how can we, as a society, move forward? Throughout the making of this report,
01:07:11it has become evident that people need a real choice in the treatment of cancer. And, as we have seen,
01:07:17people have felt compelled to have treatments that they know will harm them in the hope that it will
01:07:22do more good. But that's no way to deal with our biggest killer. The problem, which I have heard
01:07:27repeatedly, is the lack of recognised and conventional evidence that tells the world that natural health
01:07:32treatments are effective. Natural healers say the evidence exists. It's all around us in the
01:07:37testimonies of the people who have survived cancer by treating it themselves naturally or by health
01:07:42institutions guiding them. But that is not enough for the world we live in, and the result is no forward
01:07:48movement. And who suffers? Not the pharmaceutical, charitable, political or health establishments,
01:07:54who have no desire to change the status quo. But, as ever, the patient suffers. People are forced to
01:08:00beg borrow and goodness knows what else to fund their own natural health treatments, and that is not okay.
01:08:06There is plenty of money swilling around the cancer industry to develop more synthesised drugs,
01:08:11and it's time to redistribute that. Throughout the making of this report, I've worked closely with
01:08:18the New Earth University. Knowledgeable people, drawn from all different expertise and experience,
01:08:23and they are committed to having natural approaches recognised and available to patients. Just in the
01:08:30same way that chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery currently is. It's about patients with cancer,
01:08:37having a real choice. The truth is, if we are to overcome the horrific chance of having cancer
01:08:43in our lifetime, it's time to demand that our interests are put first. Because the fact is,
01:08:48and for too long, they have been put last. The message is clear, and we would do well to heed it.
01:08:54For all the money that has poured in to cure cancer, and for such an apparently progressive society,
01:09:00we have seldom been more sick.
01:09:30For more information, please visit www.toc.org.au
01:09:55www.toc.org.au