In this article, Mike Anderson shares his film, Killing Cancer from the Inside Out, and a shocking look at cancer studies. Mike Anderson is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet, and filmmaker/producer of Eating and Healing Cancer from the Inside Out.
Kevin: OK, great. I want to talk a little bit about the second movie Killing Cancer
Inside Out.” Just seeing that title opens a kind of worms. First, let’s talk about where this idea came from.
Mike: The idea is that conventional medicine is always what I call external medicine… They come in with their tools from outside and use external means to cure something, like cut out a tumor through surgery or something. Whereas you really heal cancer from the inside out because cancer means there is something terribly wrong with your body. A tumor is just a symptom of it. Your body’s entire biochemistry is basically messed up. And what you have to do is change it. The only way to alter that biochemistry and make your body unfriendly to cancer cells is through diet in the first place. Of course attitude, mind and stress all play a part, but I think it varies from person to person. I don’t think it’s nearly as important as diet itself. If you look at cancer cells themselves, what kind of environment do they like? Acidic environment, there is little oxygen because they can survive without oxygen and a whole bunch of other things. That’s the kind of environment they thrive in, and that’s the kind of environment that comes from eating the standard American diet. It should come as no surprise that we have such a cancer epidemic simply because the vast majority of cancers are caused by diet; no question.
Kevin: Was there a reason you made the film?
Mike: I’ve always wanted to do something about cancer and this guy in Florida kind of pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to do it. It turned out to be a lot…any project, if you take a closer look, it turned out to be a much bigger project than I had imagined. The cancer industry itself, I think, has long been criticized.
If you watch, I give statistics at the beginning of the film, it’s from a report by some oncologists in Australia looking at clinical trials over a 14 year period up to 2004. What they showed were the treatments because all of our major cancers are completely ineffective. What is unique about this study is that it used absolute numbers. That means absolute versus relative numbers. If you take a study in the cancer industry and convert the results to absolute numbers, you’ll get this dismal result. Like 00000 success and 5 year survival rates for breast, cervical, any type of cancer, cervical cancer, any type of cancer you want. Relative numbers mean just that. They are relative to something else, such as a number. B. a previous study, and they may show an improvement. You are not 1 in 100 people.
I tell people that if you feel like getting a treatment, you have to go to your doctor and say, “How many people in 100 will benefit?” Well, doctor, let’s take tamoxifen for example. The doctor will say, “Well, if you take tamoxifen for five years, it will reduce your chance of breast cancer coming back by 49%.” That’s a blatant lie. That’s a relative number. If you take the absolute number, it’s only 1.6 out of 100 people, instead of giving the impression that well, 49 out of 100 people will benefit from it. But it’s only 1.6, and the patient needs to know that. This could happen randomly, it’s so low. It could be a placebo effect, it’s so small.
All of this is below 10% in our major cancers, well below 10% in terms of effectiveness. But the cancer industry has used relative statistics. If you go to the American Cancer Society Facts and Figures, you’ll see that every single number in it has “Relative” prefixed to it, and that’s a big mystery. Relative, relative to what? It could be a previous study. It’s a manipulated number and it’s completely wrong.
As in the case of tamoxifen, they show that the drug is nearly 50 times more potent than it actually is. And that impresses the patients. People who know these statistics will say that a patient should never be given relative numbers because they don’t understand them; They are for statisticians. Well, it’s not just patients, it’s oncologists. Since making the film, I’ve spoken to half a dozen oncologists who don’t even know the difference between relative and absolute numbers. They just read the medication sheets and match the numbers to the patients and they say, “Oh, that sounds pretty good. OK, let’s do it.” You have no idea. This is cheating for me. I mean, especially if the oncologist knows about it
and he presents a 49% effective treatment when in reality it is only 1.6% effective. That’s just wrong.
I would not do it. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do it. I mean you’d better take a placebo and a beer than this drug. But that’s true across the board, incredibly ineffective there.
I was watching the Morning Show on ABC and this Nancy Schneiderman was there and they said they had a 91% cure rate for early stage breast cancer, right, over 5 years. Well, that’s just nonsense. They can’t do anything and have the same stats. You can do absolutely nothing about breast cancer and have the same statistic. In fact, it should be higher since breast cancer is a very slow growing cancer and you should get it easily if it is early stage cancer. But they’re manipulating numbers, they’re making the treatments look a lot more effective than they really are because it’s a lot of money, a lot of money. If you translated all numbers into absolute numbers, the cancer industry would be dead. These are the numbers that will be presented to Congress. These are the numbers they are submitting to Congress for more funding. They are totally manipulated and nobody knows it. So somehow I can’t even remember the original question.
Kevin: That was the amazing thing. So let’s look at the numbers here for people who might still not be that math savvy, which I am neither, but let me see if I’m doing this right. For example, let’s say something worked for 1 in 100 people. If they find something in the study that works for 2 people out of 100, that would be a 100% increase, right?
Mike: Right right.
Kevin: OK.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: So you could say whatever it was, in the new study, the success rate improved by 100%.
Mike: Exactly exactly. And you can do mammograms, which is a big scam;
You take two groups, let’s say a quarter of a million people in each group. That’s not a lie, because that’s how it works. The people who had regular mammograms say that three people who had regular mammograms got breast cancer. Suppose four of those who didn’t have a mammogram got breast cancer. Well, instead of looking at the population of 225,000 in each group, they take the difference between three people and four people and say that breast cancer incidence is reduced by 25% because of mammography.
Kevin: Wow.
Mike: In fact, if you take the full million people or half a million people, three
People in the mammogram group and four got breast cancer in the non-mammogram group, that’s nothing. That’s only 0.000000000. But they speak of a 25 percent reduction in breast cancer from mammograms. That’s just a blatant lie. Much has been published about it, but you will never see it on the mainstream news. You just won’t.
Kevin: Wow when you hear 25% reduction I mean that’s 1 out of 4.
Mike: Yes, that’s impressive. I go to the film and say I can’t remember the exact numbers but these are real. You have to say, “What are the real benefits of mammograms?” Well, a woman in her forties who has regular mammograms will live nine days longer. A woman in her 50s lives about 7 days longer. A woman in her 60s lives five days longer.
Something like that; it’s in the movie. And so you look at that and throw out all about these relative statistics and then you’re like, “Well, what are the benefits? This is supposed to extend my life.” The benefits are not there at all.
Kevin: What was it like talking to the oncologists?
Mike: They were hostile. They live on it. I’m telling you, they uniformly love the first part, except for the statistical part. That’s the one part they didn’t like because they didn’t really understand it. These are the people who administer these ineffective drugs. I mean, I had a guy… Hodgkin is her claim to fame. The American Cancer Society will say in their Facts and Figures book that it has an 85% cure rate.
Well, that’s nonsense. That’s a relative statistic. If you look at the absolute number, it’s about 40%. It’s even worse, but they don’t understand that. They will tell their patients, “Yes, it has an 85% cure rate.” Well, they think 85 out of 100 people get cured of it. Although there are actually 40 and this is their best. Hodgkin is her best treatment ever. But what they don’t say is that that’s a five-year cure rate. What happens after five years? Well, the cures are starting to fall precipitously with Hodgkin’s disease and other diseases, the lymphomas, where they have them, their leukemias, where they’re having quite a bit of success, especially with childhood leukemia. But what happens is that over time the cancers come back and they get other problems because of the treatments. They have liver disease, they could die of liver failure and all sorts of other things beyond that five year period. And that really skews it down.
Thanks to Kevin Gianni
