“Fake” cancer diagnoses continue to plague Americans

In January, as people refocus on their health and visit their doctors, we typically see a dramatic upswing in new cancer diagnoses. And I’ve always found that statistic particularly troubling, as it confirms what we know about the mainstream, crony, corporatist cancer industry…

That it’s a business—first and foremost.

So, it’s really no wonder that a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) just found that cancer overdiagnosis continues to be a huge problem in our country. And in my view, it very well may be the most dangerous, unspoken epidemic in modern medicine…

Researchers examine four decades of cancer statistics

For the new analysis, U.S. researchers examined four decades of cancer statistics. And they found that overall cancer mortality—the rate of death from cancer—has indeed dropped dramatically over the last 40 years. There have also been some advancements in treating rare cancers, as I’ll explain in a moment.

However, they also found that overall cancer incidence—the overall rate of cancer diagnosis—has actually been rising over that same time period…despite what the cancer industry wants you to believe.

And that’s because more and more “fake” cancers are being found and “diagnosed” with over-zealous screening programs. Then, the mainstream aggressively treats these “fake” cancers, leading to all kinds of unnecessary harms, costs, and worries. Including toxic, medieval treatments that cause secondary, often untreatable cancers. And the sad truth is, the “fake” cancers could not have shortened the patient’s life in the first place! So, it’s only made to look like cancer deaths are declining, by including all the fake cancers that could not kill anyone in the first place.

So, clearly, they are not winning the war on cancer. Instead, they are contributing to it!

Now, let’s dig in a little deeper to the NEJM analysis to go over a few of its specific findings…

Some improvement in treating rare cancers

In their new analysis, researchers attempted to gauge success by type of cancer. So they developed three categories, using a complex profile of results:

  • Desirable—Fields where there is typically a true cancer occurrence and where the associated drop in mortality rate clearly demonstrates improvements in treatment.
  • Undesirable—Fields where there is a discordance between cancer incidence and mortality, suggesting an overdiagnosis problem.
  • Mixed—Fields where there is both a rising incidence in cancer and a declining mortality rate. Again, suggesting an overdiagnosis problem.

Two cancer fields that earned “desirable” results over the last 40 years were for the treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a kind of leukemia, and stomach cancer.

But notice…these are rare cancers that don’t have any widespread screening programs. Plus, stomach cancer has been disappearing in this country all on its own for many decades.

The field of lung cancer also achieved a “desirable” result, with a lower incidence and a lower mortality rate. The study authors credited this improvement to a decline in cigarette smoking.

But as I’ve reported before, most people today who develop lung cancer never smoked or quit long ago. Not to mention, lung cancer still remains the No. 1 cancer-killer in this country. So, what’s so “desirable” about that continued distinction? And what does the mainstream have to offer these ignored and forgotten victims? Clearly, they’re not telling the whole story.

Undesirable and mixed results for most-common cancers

Researchers gave the fields of kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma “undesirable” results, suggesting that diagnosis and treatment is indeed a problem for these types of cancers, as I have also reported for years.

They gave the fields of breast cancer and prostate cancer “mixed” results, with rising incidences and lower mortality rates. Again, this result exposes the fact that the cancer industry is finding and treating more and more “fake” cancers. And while treatment may be improving marginally for some early cancers, it’s clearly not getting better for metastatic cancers.

In fact, in another recent study published in the NEJM, researchers estimated that breast cancer was “over-diagnosed” in 1.3 million women over the past 30 years. And in 2008 alone, breast cancer was “over-diagnosed” in more than 70,000 women…which means almost one-third of all breast cancers diagnosed in 2008 were “fake”!

And we know the problem is equally bad—if not worse—with prostate cancer, thanks to decades of inappropriately pushing widespread screening with the woefully inaccurate prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening test.

Clearly, the more the government spends on cancer, the more resources and incentives there are to “find cancer,” with ever more screenings, diagnoses, and treatments. (Especially in January!)

Pathetic and tragic results are a national scandal

So, after spending five decades and trillions of dollars on the war on cancer, we have only achieved a few minor victories in how we treat a handful of rare cancers. Yet, outcomes for the biggest cancer problems of our time still have “undesirable” or “mixed” results!

The entire new report actually reminds me of when the U.S. government issued fake “body counts” during Vietnam to hide the fact that we weren’t winning the war.

Except—tragically—the Vietnam War is no longer the longest, failed war in U.S. history. Nor are the conflicts in the Middle East…

No, the war on cancer certainly takes that sad distinction!

Fortunately, as I’ve always said, the real answers for cancer have been hiding in plain sight all along. In fact, there are dozens of safe, natural alternatives for preventing, detecting, AND treating all types of cancer. And I’ve covered them all in my groundbreaking online learning tool, my Authentic Anti-Cancer Protocol. To learn more, or enroll today, simply click here.


“Epidemiologic Signatures in Cancer.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2019; 381:1378-1386. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1905447

“Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2012; 367(21):1998-2005. doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1206809

“Seasonal variation in the diagnosis of cancer: a study based on national cancer registration in Sweden.” Br J Cancer. 2003 May 6; 88(9): 1358–1360. doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600901