EXPOSED: Big pharma’s cancer cover-up

How mainstream treatments for chronic diseases up your tumor risk

And the natural, life-saving solutions you can turn to instead

In recent months, there’s been a lot of attention surrounding this major new study finding: Having a chronic disease can raise your risk of dying from cancer by as much as 70 percent.

The study also showed that having chronic conditions like heart, kidney and lung disease, diabetes, and even gout, can raise your chances of getting cancer as much as or more than heavy smoking, lack of exercise, insufficient diet, alcohol abuse, and obesity.

Mainstream medicine seems to have been shocked by this research. But if you really understand the science, these findings shouldn’t really be news—let alone big news.

However, there is a newsworthy factor that researchers and mainstream medicine completely missed—and one that big pharma doesn’t want you to know. Even though it could save your life…

I’ll share this vital information with you in just a moment.

But first, let’s look more closely at the study details… and the scientific reason why the so-called “major” findings aren’t surprising for those of us who use natural approaches for disease treatment, prevention, and reversal.

Study examines link to shortened lifespans

Taiwanese researchers followed nearly 406,000 people over nine years, tracking the study participants’ markers for arthritis, heart disease (blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol), diabetes (blood sugar), gout, and kidney and lung disease.1 The researchers also recorded deaths due to bladder, colon, kidney, liver, stomach, and oral cancers.

The researchers found that having these eight chronic medical conditions and markers was associated with a 12 to 70 percent increased risk of dying from cancer.

What’s more, having these conditions contributed to 21 percent of all new cancer cases and 39 percent of all cancer deaths.

And higher chronic disease scores were associated with marked reductions in longevity. Women were found to have shorter life spans by more than 13 years, and men were found to have a whopping 16 years cut from their lives.

Three reasons why this study offers nothing new

Here’s why I’m not in awe of these findings, unlike the media and some other doctors.

1.) Competing risks. Chronic diseases like dementia, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer all have the same lifestyle risk factors the study researchers cited—especially obesity, poor diet, and lack of exercise.

In fact, biostatisticians and epidemiologists have known for years that common chronic diseases share common risk factors. This concept is called “competing risks.”

For example, cancer researchers found that people who most likely would’ve eventually developed cancer, instead died first from (the even more common) heart disease. So, basically, they had the shared risk factors for both diseases, but developed heart disease before they could get cancer.

2.) Questionable “lifestyle factors.” When it comes to risk factors for cancer, there are many more than those cited in the study, or by our government.

For example, as I wrote in a January Daily Dispatch (“Birth control pills increase breast cancer risk by startling percentage”), the government has largely ignored the role of hormonal and reproductive factors and birth control drugs in raising the risk of breast cancer. (To revisit this, simply enter the article title into the search bar on

And as I’ve often noted, when it comes to lung cancer, the government has ignored virtually all of the other environmental and genetic factors that influence risk for the past 35 years or so. Instead, it has focused exclusively on smoking, leaving doctors and tens of thousands of patients high and dry regarding other prevention and treatment strategies. (For more about lung health, see page 3.)

3.) Inability to see the big picture. As I’ve often pointed out, the mainstream tends to divide the healthcare world into “silos” of prevention vs. treatment, and treats each disease specifically and individually. The theory is that each medical condition requires a different drug(s) for treating it, not to mention a different drug(s) for preventing it.

However, in the world of natural approaches, science shows that a nutrient or botanical remedy effective for one aspect of health is also good for many aspects of health. Furthermore, since natural remedies address the causes of diseases, science has found that more often than not, the same nutrient or botanical that prevents a disease can also help to reverse it.

That’s why natural approaches have been shown to both prevent and reverse chronic diseases like dementia, diabetes, and heart disease. And the same approaches are panning out for cancer as well—in direct conflict with the mainstream’s “one disease/one drug” approach to treatment and prevention.

Which leads me to the key factor the researchers should have focused on…

How drugs prescribed for chronic diseases actually increase cancer risk

Nowhere in this study did the researchers suggest another common risk factor that occurs with having chronic diseases. I’m talking about all of their drug treatments.

As I mentioned before, the long arm of big pharma has reached out to ensure that nobody with a chronic disease, or even a supposed risk factor for a chronic disease, goes without the “benefits” of its multiple medical ministrations.

But the hidden truth is, these drugs can actually be cancer risk factors themselves. Let me explain…

Since drugs rarely address the causes of a chronic disease—let alone cure it—patients often come to terms with the fact that they’ll have to take these drugs for the rest of their lives. A sort of “life sentence,” if you will. And eventually, they’ll take them long enough that those competing risks I mentioned earlier will lead to cancer.

For example, if a drug for heart disease actually does put off dying from the disease (“managing” the condition), the patient will have more time to come down with cancer.

But, to make matters worse, many of these drugs themselves contribute to increased cancer risk.

Take statins, for example. These drugs—intended to lower the imaginary “risk factor” of cholesterol—have been shown to increase the risk of cataracts, dementia, diabetes, kidney disease muscular disorders, and more. And yet, early studies didn’t reveal some of these risks, as the studies weren’t conducted long enough to track the development of these chronic diseases over time. (The FDA observed just long enough to ensure they produced their desired results—a reduction in cholesterol—before rushing to approve them…)

Cancer takes the longest of all to develop—and it’s now been suggested by many in the alternative health world that statins can cause cancer, which makes absolute sense. We know that statins deplete coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is critical for cellular metabolism and is a recognized natural treatment for the complications of cancer. Taking this into account, it would be no surprise to learn that these largely useless drugs may contribute to cancer as well.

Another important point to keep in mind is that statins are just some of the many drugs that are metabolic disrupters. And metabolic disruption is a key factor in cancer (as I reported in my January issue, which you can view on

Which came first—the cancer or the drug?

So here’s the key question: Do chronic diseases also increase cancer deaths because of the drugs that are almost universally used to “manage” these diseases? We’ll never know from this new study alone, as the researchers didn’t answer—or even ask—this very obvious question.

But what has been clear is that you can markedly reduce your risk of cancer with lifestyle modifications regardless of what other chronic conditions you may have.

Even better, these changes are fairly simple and include building healthy habits like eating a balanced diet, engaging in regular physical activity, and taking supplements like vitamins B and D (which studies have shown to reduce cancer risk).

To learn all about the many natural approaches you can take (as well as what to avoid) to prevent, treat, and reverse cancer, refer to my Authentic Anti-Cancer Protocol. To learn more about this online learning tool, or to enroll today, click here or simply call 1-866-747-9421 and ask for order code EOV3U502.



Cancer treatments that kill

Sir Francis Bacon, the 16th-century philosopher and scientist, once commented:  “The remedy is worse than the disease.” That can certainly be true with conventional cancer treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation have been linked to untreatable second and third cancers, along with fatal heart disease.

When I was in medical training in Philadelphia, researchers had discovered a “miracle” cancer treatment, Adriamycin, from a marine organism naturally found in the Adriatic Ocean. My next-door neighbor and retired firefighter, Frank Squadrito, had been diagnosed with lymphoma and then successfully treated with Adriamycin.

Unfortunately, soon after treatment, Frank came down with Adriamycin-induced heart failure. The doctors prescribed digitalis (derived from the foxglove plant) for that condition, but it couldn’t keep Frank alive—even though the Adriamycin had cured his cancer. Which brings to mind the old gallows-humor adage: The treatment was a success, but the patient died.

Doctors understood the risks of Adriamycin and balanced them against treating a rapidly fatal cancer. But this shouldn’t be the case, especially when it comes to breast cancer, which typically spreads so slowly that women (especially older women) can often live 20 years or longer before the cancer makes a comeback.

Other breast cancer treatments, such as HER-2 therapies, can weaken the heart muscle, bringing on heart failure. Chemo drugs such as doxorubicin, anthracycline, and antimetabolites can also damage the heart and lead to death. And the same goes for radiation treatments.

My poor grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1977 (at age 76) and was treated only with radiation. The cancer appeared to be cured, but the radiation caused damage to her heart and lungs, which proved fatal to her 6 years later in 1983. I suspect she was one of many women whose breast tissue findings were labeled as “cancer,” but would have never spread or killed her.  Patients shouldn’t be subject to chemical cancer treatments and radiation right off the bat.

The lesson? If you’re diagnosed with any type of cancer, make sure to discuss with your doctor as to whether chemical treatments are 100 percent necessary. If they are, protect yourself against the complication of heart disease by with the actionable advice in Unit 8 of my Authentic Anti-Cancer Protocol (details are included above).



1Cancer risk associated with chronic diseases and disease markers: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2018 Jan 31;360:k134. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k134.