In this article, Mike Anderson shares on 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 film maker/producer of “Eating” and “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out.”
Kevin: OK, great. I want to talk a little bit about the second film, “Killing Cancer
from the Inside Out.” Just seeing that title kind of opens up a can of worms. Let’s talk about where that idea came from, first.
Mike: The idea is that conventional medicine always, what I call external medicine… They’ll come with their tools from the outside and apply external means to cure something, like cut out a tumor through surgery, or something like that. Whereas you’re really healing cancer from the inside out because cancer means that something is terribly wrong with your body. A tumor is just a symptom of it. The whole biochemistry of your body is screwed up, essentially. And what you have to do is change it. The only way you can change that biochemistry and make your body unfriendly to cancer cells is through diet, primarily. Of course, attitude and mind and stress, they play a role, but I think that varies individual by individual. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as important as diet itself. If you look at cancer cells themselves, what kind of environment do they like? Acidic environment, there is low oxygen because they can survive without oxygen and a whole host of other things. That’s the kind of environment they thrive in and that’s the kind of environment that’s produced by eating the standard American diet. It shouldn’t be any surprise that we have such an epidemic of cancer, just because the vast majority of cancers are caused by the diet; no question about it.
Kevin: Was there a reason that you created 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 much… Any project, when you go into it, it turned out to be a much bigger project than I had imagined. The cancer industry itself, I mean, it’s been criticized for a long time.
If you look, I give statistics at the beginning of the film, it was from a report done by a couple of oncologists in Australia, it looked at clinical trials for a 14-year period, up till 2004. What they showed was the treatments for all of our major cancers are totally ineffective. The unique thing about that study is that they used absolute numbers. That means that absolute versus relative numbers. If you take any study in the cancer industry and translate the results into absolute numbers, you’re going to get that dismal result. Like 00000 success and 5-year survival rates for breast, uterine, whatever kind of cancer, cervical, whatever kind of cancer you want. Relative numbers mean just that. They’re relative to something else, like a previous study, and they may show improvement. They’re not 1 out of 100 people.
I tell people, if you’re up for some treatment you’ve got to go to your physician and say, “Out of 100 people, how many are going to benefit from this?” Well, the physician, let’s take tamoxifen for example. The physician will say, “Well, if you take tamoxifen for five years, it’s going to reduce your chances of breast cancer recurrence by 49%.” That is a bald- faced lie. That’s a relative number. If you take the absolute number, it’s only 1.6 people out of 100, instead of you get the impression well, 49 people out of 100 are going to benefit from this. But it’s only 1.6, and that’s what the patient needs to know. That could happen by chance, it’s so low. It could be a placebo effect, it’s so low.
All of these, for our major cancers, they’re all under 10%, way below 10% in terms of effectiveness. But what the cancer industry has done is use relative statistics. If you go to the American Cancer Society facts and figures, you will see that every single number in there has “Relative” in front of 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 totally false.
So like in the case of tamoxifen, they show that drug to be almost 50 times more effective than it actually is. And this is impressing patients. People who know these statistics will say a patient should never be given relative numbers because they don’t understand them; they’re for statisticians. Well, it’s not just patients, but oncologists. Since I’ve made the film, I’ve talked to half a dozen oncologists who don’t even know the difference between the relative and absolute numbers. They just read the drug sheets and they pair up the numbers to the patients and they say, “Oh that sounds pretty good. OK, let’s do it.” They have no idea. That, to me, is fraud. I mean, especially if the oncologist knows about it
and he’s presenting a 49% effective treatment, whereas in fact, it’s 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 be better off taking a placebo and a beer, rather than going with that drug. But that’s true across the board, there, incredibly ineffective.
I saw the “Morning Show” on ABC and this Nancy Schneiderman was on there, and they were saying that early-stage breast cancer, they had a 91% cure rate, right, over 5 years. Well, that’s just nonsense. You can do nothing and have that same statistic. You can do absolutely nothing with the breast cancer and have that same statistic. In fact, it should be higher because breast cancer is a very slow-growing cancer and you should easily get that if it’s an early-stage cancer. But they manipulate numbers, they make the treatments look much more effective than they really are because there’s a lot of money involved in this, a lot of money. If you translated all the numbers into absolute numbers, the cancer industry would be out of business. These are the numbers that are presented to Congress. These are the numbers that they present to Congress in order to get more funding. They’re totally manipulated and no one knows it. So anyway, I can’t even remember the original question.
Kevin: That was the amazing. So, let’s just review the numbers here for people who may be still kind of not as mathematically savvy, which I’m not either, but let me see if I get this right. For instance, say that something worked 1 out of 100 people. If they found something in the study that worked 2 out of 100 people, that would be 100% increase, correct?
Mike: Right, right.
Kevin: So, they could say that whatever it was, in the new study, improved success rate by 100%.
Mike: Exactly, exactly. And you can take like mammograms, which is a big scam;
you take two groups, say a quarter of a million people in each group. This is no lie because this is exactly how it works. The people who had regular mammograms, say three people got breast cancer who had regular mammograms. Say four people got breast cancer of those who did not have mammograms. Well, instead of looking at the population of 225,000 in each group, they’re taking the difference between three people and four people and saying that’s a 25% reduction in breast cancer occurrence because of mammography.
Mike: In fact, if you take the full million people, or half-million people, three
people with the mammogram group and four got breast cancer with the non-mammogram group, that’s nothing. That’s just .000000000. But they are saying a 25% reduction in breast cancer because of mammograms. That is just a bald-faced lie. There’s been a lot published on this, but you’ll 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: Yeah, that’s impressive. I go onto the film and I say, I can’t remember the exact numbers, but these are real. You have to say, “What are the actual benefits of mammograms?” Well, a woman in her 40s who gets regular mammograms is going to live nine extra days. A woman in her 50s, she’ll live like 7 extra days. A woman in her 60s, will live five extra days.
Something like that; it’s in the film. And so you look at this and you throw everything out about these relative statistics and then you go and say, “Well, what are the benefits? This is supposed to prolong my life.” The benefits aren’t there at all.
Kevin: What was it like speaking to the oncologists?
Mike: They were hostile. They’re making their living off of this. I tell you, uniformly, they love Part One, except for the statistical part. That’s the one part they did not like because they didn’t really understand it. These are the people who are administering these ineffective drugs. I mean, I had one guy… Hodgkin’s is their claim to fame. The American Cancer Society in their facts and figures book will say it’s got 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 than that, but they don’t understand that. They will tell their patients, “Yeah, it’s got an 85% cure rate.” Well, they’re thinking 85 people out of 100 are going to be cured from this. Whereas, in fact, it’s 40 and this is their best. Hodgkin’s is their very best treatment. But what they don’t say is that that’s a five- year cure rate. What happens after five years? Well, the cures start dropping precipitously with Hodgkin’s and other diseases, the lymphomas where they have the, their leukemia’s where they have the fairly high success right with childhood leukemia’s. But what happens is that over time, the cancers come back, they get other problems because of the treatments. They’ve got liver disease, they could die of liver failure and all kinds of other things that go beyond this five-year period. And that really skews it downward.