Reuters has surprisingly reported some scientific findings that are not usually released to the public. These findings demonstrate a consistent correlation between childhood exposure to medical radiation and cancer drugs with having extremely high premature death rates.
A recent study by Birmingham University (England) concluded that those who have cancers as children, and manage to survive treatments, have extremely high chances of premature deaths. After monitoring 18,000 childhood cancer survivors, the university documented that these people tended to die early from a range of ailments including heart attacks, strokes, and of course, new cancers. Premature deaths were 11 times more likely than for the general population.
It really gives a new spin to the terms "survivor" and "cure rate", doesn't it? How would the courts have looked differently upon the Daniel Hauser case, if they knew and understood what 'survival' really meant in medical circles? Would they have granted him his inherent human right to choose his own treatments?
"Survivors experienced 11 times the number of deaths expected from the general population, and although this rate declined over the years, it was still three times higher than expected 45 years after their original diagnosis."
Lead researcher Raoul Reulen, from Birmingham University described new cancers as a "recognized late complication of childhood cancer". To the medical establishment, deaths and cancers are just little "complications", instead of evidence that their methods are not working, or of manslaughter. To those with any inkling of a conscience, these abysmal rates of survival would be reason to challenge current theories, and try new methods.
"This is due largely to exposure to radiation during treatment, and to the side effects of some of the more toxic cancer drugs".
— Raoul Reulen
Perhaps more shocking than the admission that these "complications" were caused by previous cancer treatments (rather than genetics), is that this study actually got published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Hell hath frozen over, indeed. Studies which reveal embarrassing figures are usually prevented from being printed in the medical journals, so we're really confused this time. A rift in the space-time continuum perhaps? These journals have traditionally embraced scientific dishonesty concerning all studies which lend any credence to alternative medicine, so we're wondering if they might cover the Budwig Protocol in the next issue, while Hell's still thawing out. We notice that the studies of DMCA's neutralization of autism have so far been rejected from all major medical journals, despite both safety and efficacy. This political censorship is due to the treatment proving the connection between heavy metal toxicity and autism, which is a link that they have been covering up for a long time; along with their buddies at the American Dental Association.
For perhaps the first time, we must commend JAMA for printing the truth. (I feel so dirty now.) The Reuter's News Service likewise gets our applause and gratitude for doing the right thing, and for printing the truth. It took serious guts for them to do it, so a thank-you from all of us is in order. It is rare that the public is given an opportunity to look upon real survival statistics, allowing it to make its own truly informed choices.
Cancer survivors have higher death risk for decades (The Reuter's story)