According to a recent study conducted by researchers with the American Cancer Society (ACS), men and women in the U.S. who survive adult-onset cancer for at least five years run a significantly higher risk of developing and dying from a so-called “second cancer.” (A “second cancer” refers to an entirely new, primary cancer at a different site in the body. It’s a distinct condition from metastatic cancer—which occurs when a primary tumor spreads to different sites in the body.)
Without any evidence, the ACS tried to blame these deadly second cancers on smoking, obesity, and alcohol…instead of on the strongest, most obvious cause (which they’ve reported on previously).
In my view, it’s a rather suspicious and damaging omission, especially considering the fact that second cancers are far more deadly than primary cancers. But before we get into the ACS’s ridiculous claims (and their apparent short memory), let’s back up to discuss the history of cancer research in the U.S….
Cancer research becomes politicized—almost from the start
I worked with the first group of researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to look at the link between cancer and diet in the mid-1980s. (I’m still amazed it took them until the mid-1980s to begin this important research. And they only started it because the U.S. Congress forced them to.)
But it was a comedy of errors from the beginning…
For one, the NCI put epidemiologists and biostatisticians in charge to run the show…instead of qualified research scientists who were educated, trained, and specialized in human diet and nutrition. Shortly thereafter, they added “behavioral scientists” into the mix. But putting these unqualified bureaucrats in charge helped forever politicize cancer research.
(Remember, epidemiologists, statisticians, and behavioral scientists can often get away with using crude, statistical tools to manipulate their conclusions to suit their agenda. Whereas, actual scientists take real, physical findings…like cells under a microscope and the effects of nutrients in the human body. So, the results should be able to speak for themselves—without reams of statistical manipulation. And, they should be harder to misrepresent.)
Still, even with the unqualified bureaucrats running the show at the NCI back then, the major risk factors for cancer were clear. These factors increased overall cancer risk by 10 times or more compared to people without them:
- Older age
- Occupational exposure to certain chemicals (such as asbestos)
- Habitual chain smoking of two or more packs per day
- Certain infections like hepatitis B
Of course, when it comes to breast cancer, specifically, increasing age was the biggest risk factor, as with other common cancers. But reproductive factors and declining fertility rates also carry large risks. (It wasn’t [and still isn’t] politically correct to discuss them.)
Which brings us back to the new ACS study on second cancers…
ACS misses the forest for the trees
For the new study, ACS researchers analyzed data on more than 1.5 million Americans who survived cancer between 1992 and 2017.
It turns out, among the cancer survivors, more than 156,000 people developed a second primary cancer. And—more than 88,000 people died from it.
Overall, compared to the general population, male cancer survivors had a 11 percent higher risk of developing a second cancer and a 45 percent higher risk of dying from it (making these second cancers much more deadly than the first cancer). And female survivors had a 10 percent higher risk of developing a second cancer and a 33 percent higher risk of dying from it. (Again, making the second cancer far more deadly.)
People who had survived esophageal or throat cancer, or Hodgkin’s lymphoma, had the greatest risk of getting a second cancer.
Then, bladder, esophageal, lung, oral, and urinary cancers accounted for 26 to 45 percent of second cancers and deaths. And lung cancer alone accounted for 31 to 33 percent of second cancers and cancer deaths.
In their report, the ACS researchers blindly blamed these second cancers on smoking—without any good evidence from their own study, or from the general science. They also implied that breast, cervical, and colon second cancers were somehow even primarily related to smoking!
Then, they pivoted and blamed colon, endometrial, liver, and pancreatic second cancers on obesity. But here again, they made the claim without any good evidence to back it up! Instead, they just based it on their long-standing biases.
Plus, one has to seriously question the role of excess body weight among cancer survivors anyway, as they typically experience “cancer cachexia”—or extreme malnutrition and weight loss. And considering the radical surgery and other treatments performed for first cancers, like esophageal and throat cancer—which make it difficult or impossible to eat—we should also consider the roles of poor diet, digestion, and nutrition among survivors of the first cancers.
Lastly, the ACS failed to mention the strongest cause of second cancers—for which we do have evidence. (In fact, the ACS even reported on this cause five years ago!)
Thankfully, Dr. Anthony D’Amico of Harvard Medical School, who was not involved with the ACS study, brought up this elephant in the room…
Original cancer treatments can cause secondary cancers
In a recent interview, Dr. D’Amico pointed out that cancer treatments—including radiation and chemotherapy—for the first cancer put people at high risk for developing second cancers. And—they’re also what make second cancers more deadly.
He said that cancer patients who were treated with chemo or radiation need to be monitored carefully, so that another cancer can be caught earlier.
But here’s what’s even more baffling…
Back in 2016, the ACS itself released a report that found the more radiation or chemotherapy someone with cancer receives, the higher their risk of developing a second cancer directly caused by the original cancer treatment! They even have a whole page devoted to talking about treatment-related second cancers on their website!
So, why in the world the ACS researchers didn’t mention cancer treatments as a cause of second cancers in this 2020 study, I have no idea. But apparently, they have a very short (and very selective) memory.
In the end, we simply can’t rely on crony, corporatist organizations like the ACS—which only report stories that suit their agenda.
The fact of the matter is, as I’m always telling you, you have to be your own advocate and do your own research. The good news is, even though you may never hear about them from the ACS, there are dozens of safe, natural alternatives for fighting, detecting, AND treating cancer. And I’ve outlined them all in detail in my groundbreaking, online, learning tool, my Authentic Anti-Cancer Protocol.
This all-inclusive protocol is the sum total of more than 40 years of personal research, study, and experience in natural cancer treatment. And every solution you’ll hear about has been studied and researched by countless, cutting-edge medical institutions. To learn more, or to enroll today, click here now!
Sources:
“Second Cancers Related to Treatment.” The American Cancer Society, 2/1/20. (cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/physical-side-effects/second-cancers-in-adults/treatment-risks.html)
“Association of First Primary Cancer With Risk of Subsequent Primary Cancer Among Survivors of Adult-Onset Cancers in the United States.” JAMA. 2020;324(24):2521-2535. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.23130