by Paul Fassa

Health Impact News

Dr. Mahin Khatami, PhD, is a retired professor and former program director at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). She is a world-renowned cancer researcher and one of the first scientists to link cancer cells to inflammation.

Dr. Khatami is also not afraid to criticize the “establishment” in regards to suppressing the truth regarding the integrity of scientific research, where much corruption exists:

The establishment tolerates no challenge or objection from competent and independent scientists. Independent professional views are perceived as a ‘threat’ to the establishment, and professionals become subjected to heavy harassment, bullying, and unethical and criminal practices of retaliation and elimination.

This quote is from a December 2016 article by Professor Mahin Khatami, PhD, and published in the journal Clinical and Translational Medicine titled Safety concerns and hidden agenda behind HPV vaccines: another generation of drug-dependent society?

Professor Khatami’s thoroughly-investigated paper was posted on Health Impact News with commentary by editor/publisher Brian Shilhavy, who explains the extent of Khatami’s credentials. (See: HPV Vaccine Scam: NIH Scientist Exposes Corruption in Cancer and Vaccine Industries)

Dr. Khatami Has Recently Co-Authored Another Science-Based Article Exposing Conventional Oncology’s Inability to Heal Cancer and the Folly of Cancer Vaccines

The title of this new article is Analyses of repeated failures in cancer therapy for solid tumors: poor tumor-selective drug delivery, low therapeutic efficacy, and unsustainable costs, published in the journal Clinical and Translational Medicine in March 2018.

Dr. Khatami co-authored this paper with Dr. Hiroshi Maeda.

The title alone reveals a lot. It claims the failure of cancer chemotherapy and recently developed immunotherapy solid tumor treatments to be at 95 percent, plus or minus. That’s a far cry from what the cancer industry claims and promises despite all the money thrown its way.

Meanwhile, the costs continually go up, and the general public health declines from using these therapies, even after short-term remissions are announced.

Here are a few interesting excerpts from this outspoken article generated by two highly-educated and seasoned medical scientists:

War on cancer is a very expensive Government Welfare Program for members of the establishment and their surrogates who enjoy career longevities of 40–65 years and who are entitled to continuously receive large sums of travel funds and grants with little/no review processes or producing anything of value to benefit the society. In 2013, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR, a strong lobbying group, established in 1907) shamelessly boasted that 1/3 (33%) of all women, and 1/2 (50%) of all men develop cancer in their lives and that they need more money to ‘Stand Up To Cancer’! Such alarming records of failure of clinical outcomes, the increased publicity for specific vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu) targeting young and old populations, along with increasing rates of cancer diagnosis and deaths, [are] creating huge and unsustainable costs to the public around the globe. This article discusses a closer scientific assessment of current cancer therapeutics and vaccines. We also present future logical approaches to cancer research and therapy and vaccines.

The authors, Khatami and Maeda, provide eight footnotes and 154 references to support their numerous claims and ideas.

We will provide a summary of each section for an overview of the topics covered in greater detail in the full text.

For further and more in-depth biological, biochemical, and medical discourse, read the full text of the study here.

Background

The authors discuss the worthlessness of cancer research over the past 60 years, which is producing dangerous drugs and therapies, producing poor outcomes, and even worsening patients’ health who undergo these conventional therapies.

Thus, the authors embark on an analytical odyssey to determine the worthiness of the War on Cancer and question the notion of vaccines for cancer prevention.

Thus, they carefully parse the several treatments used by conventional oncology to create a strong “science-based” foundation for their thesis which condemns the folly and corruption of the profit-driven cancer industry, which must rely on an increase of sick cancer patients to survive financially, and not cures which would stop the financial flow to develop more drugs.

Scientific bases for repeatedly failed therapeutic approaches: Molecular false flags and distorted foundations for chemo-immunotherapy

The authors explain how current cancer research produces poisons disguised as medicine and produces failures that worsen health while financially benefiting the producers.

Failures are rarely reported but masked with slightly altered dosages or application methods and publicly hailed as the latest and best cancer treatments.

This section explores the fallacy of using death prevention to allow for a few months of painful and diseased survival with a complete disregard of patients’ health and societal financial burden.

The authors are very critical of failed cancer vaccine trials:

Recent attempts on extensive trials of cancer vaccines, using viral structures or substructures against several cancers such as cervices, prostate, lung, pancreatic and skin also failed to produce the overall protective clinical outcomes

This section also points to the ignorance of more recent discoveries involving inflammation and other physiological traumas as a source of cancerous developments. The authors point out how cancer drug producers benefit by ignoring the implementation of true prevention.

Chemotherapeutic approaches using low molecular weight (LMW) agents: indiscriminate drug-distribution to normal and cancerous tissues

Standard low molecular weight (LMW) drugs such as mitomycin C, doxorubicin, methotrexate alone, or even in combination with other drugs, for treating solid tumors, have not been successful. Instead, they produce toxic side effects leading to damage among relatively healthy organs with little effect on targeted tumors.

Increasing dosages to compensate for lack of tumor response leads to the patient’s death with multiple organ failure (MOF) due to the immune system’s destruction from the drug therapies. There have been studies that strongly suggest many officially declared hospital or clinical cancer deaths are from the treatments themselves.

Targeting genetic mutations in site-specific solid cancers that produced repeatedly failed outcomes while generated huge corporate profits

You may have seen TV commercials or heard radio advertising or even seen billboards promoting cancer clinics that use personalized, precision, or targeted therapies to attract customers wary of side effects from standard chemotherapies.

The article produces a large scientific volume of carcinogenic molecular development, they say most oncologists are ignorant of, to refute those slogans meant to create more public support with little return of efficacy, though side effects may be reduced somewhat.

The authors consider the progression of biochemical, molecular, and DNA mutations a more proper pursuit of study to create timely interventions as cancers develop, minimizing side effects and creating more positive results for reducing cancerous tumors.

Cancer immunotherapy: better logics, same reductionist approaches*: controversial understanding of immunity and inflammation

*Reductionism is the process of noticing, mostly or solely, the obvious mechanical manifestations, which leads to the distortion or obfuscation of the overall process. It also involves focusing on parts and ignoring the overall picture, “not seeing the forest for the trees” sort of perspective. It is the antithesis of holistic.

The authors’ review of immunotherapy for cancer ignores better understanding of the immune system and declares oncology practitioners who do this lack the complete understanding of inflammation’s influence on immunity.

Supplementing the immune system makes sense (better logic), but with insufficient knowledge and human testing, artificial induction of immune factors won’t be the ultimate solution for cancer healing.

With immunotherapy, oncologists directly supplement the immune system by inserting cytotoxic T-Cells, natural killer cells, and dendritic cells and target them to the cancerous areas. This sounds good, but these tests have been successful only with mouse cancer models.

The authors posit that the amount of added immune cells for humans makes the success of this treatment improbable.

Problem of liposomal and micellar drugs. Controversies in stability and drug release from liposomal or micellar complex of antitumor drugs in tumor accumulation

Yet another recent approach from orthodox oncology proposes nanoparticle and liposomal technology applications to target tumor areas with – toxic pharmaceutical drugs.

The article’s authors posit, with scientific evidence, that this makes those toxins more difficult to clear, adding to the probability of lingering adverse side effects and lowered immunity post-treatment.

Problems with cancer drug screening and safety in rats and mice: limitations for clinical efficacy in human[s]

Shortly summarized: Cancer research with drugs using mouse models ignores the complex molecular evolution in humans that leads to metastatic cancers that the authors discussed thoroughly earlier in the article.

Controversies and bias in conducting clinical trials: over-diagnosis, crossovers and randomization of protocols

In this section, the authors critically examine the way specific cancer drugs were tested to explain how trials can miss the mark with or without fudging their reports.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT). A century-old history and little tangible advancement

This section provides a detailed discussion of PDT (photodynamic therapy), created by N.R. Finsen in 1903, to treat dermal tuberculosis. PDT was expanded to treat cancer about half a century ago with the creation of a special light that became commercially available.

PDT works by synchronizing a light’s wavelength with the that of a tumor tissue. After Finsen’s time period, this therapy was no longer researched for further development. It was essentially shelved in favor of radiation and chemo.

See: Let There Be Light – How Colored Light is Used for Healing

Prohibitive costs of cancer therapy with repeatedly failed outcomes. Economic impact on medical insurance, and unbearable burden to the society

This topic title tells the tale, but a solution is offered in this section. The authors go into more detail of different costs and explain how insurance covers only government (FDA) approved chemo drugs and treatment protocols, such as radiation therapy. They insist that alternative treatments should also be included under insurance plans.

This would both open the field for many more to enjoy harmless, more effective cancer solutions without going out of pocket, and it would reduce the financial burden of private insurance companies, lower customer premiums, and force public insurances (Medicare-Medicaid-etc) to reduce government expenditures.

Future perspectives: logical, systematic, and cost-effective approaches to cancer research and therapy

After outlining more details on the lack of understanding complex molecular issues leading to cancer with pharmaceutical drug research, the authors urge a more basic fundamental approach:

… systematic approaches to understanding effective immunity are expected to lay a foundation for minimizing or delaying the onset of nearly all other chronic and preventable diseases for the aging populations around the world.

Here is the complete text of the Khatami-Maeda journal published article.

See Also: The Cancer Industry is Too Prosperous to Allow a Cure

Conclusion: Money Drives Cancer Research – Not Cures

The cancer industry is flooded with money from ignorant government and non-government fundraising sources that only trust pharmaceutical companies and mainstream medical institutions. The individuals involved ultimately become victims of their corruption.

Meanwhile, online alternative resources, such as the Cancer Tutor, beg for donations from individual readers to sustain their reports of natural cancer-curing options beyond chemo and radiation. Holistic and natural sources for healing from cancer should be considered, funded, and approved.

This is a simple, comprehensive definition of cancer that seems reductionist, but is truly holistic:

Cancer is the result of insufficient cellular nutrition and excessive toxic cellular pollution from food and other environmental sources.

This is how the late Dr. Max Gerson defined cancer. His dietary and detoxing protocol is still being practiced in Mexico today – the Gerson Protocol. There are many other natural, effective, and safe options as well. You can search and review many of them here.

Dr. Khatami has also authored a book: Inflammation, Aging and Cancer – Biological Injustices to Molecular Village of Immunity that Guard Health

See also:

We Lost the War on Cancer – Review of Alternative Cancer Therapies



eBook

Retail : $999

Now : $599

We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.

The cancer industry is probably the most prosperous business in the United States. In 2014, there will be an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the US. $6 billion of tax-payer funds are cycled through various federal agencies for cancer research, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI states that the medical costs of cancer care are $125 billion, with a projected 39 percent increase to $173 billion by 2020.

The simple fact is that the cancer industry employs too many people and produces too much income to allow a cure to be found. All of the current research on cancer drugs is based on the premise that the cancer market will grow, not shrink.

John Thomas explains to us why the current cancer industry prospers while treating cancer, but cannot afford to cure it in Part I. In Part II, he surveys the various alternative cancer therapies that have been proven effective, but that are not approved by the FDA.