Aspirin

On Cancer

• “Any doctor in the United States who cures cancer using alternative methods will be destroyed. You cannot name me a doctor doing well with cancer using alternative therapies that is not under attack. And I know these people; I’ve interviewed them.” -Dr. Gary Null [from Cancer – Step Outside the Box by Ty M. Bollinger – 2006]

As you know, I’ve become interested in Cancer and its century of corruption.

The cancer industry is magnificently corrupt, having turned the suppression of NSE treatments (Necessary, Safe and Effective) into an artform.

What prompted this stack is recently coming across a lecture about Aspirin and Cancer (Summarized below). I thought it was worth amplifying.

I decided to combine it with a chapter from Ty Bollinger’s book Cancer – Step Outside the Box which is a good short and sharp education on the rotten history of Oligarchy controlled American cancer medicine that Empire has exported to the world. It’s unfathomably putrid.

So, first let’s spend some time with Bollinger…

Cancer – Step Outside the Box

Chapter 1

The Cancer Industry - Brace Yourself

What you are about to read will probably challenge everything you have heard since you were born. From the crib, we have been taught to blindly believe everything we read in the papers and on the internet, what we hear on the radio, and what we watch on TV. As a result, America is chock full of “sheeple” (i.e. people who are meek like sheep, easily persuaded, intellectually dependent, and tend to follow the crowd).

In this book, I am going to ask you to step outside “the box” and actually think for yourself. I am going to ask you to get past the “no way” factor which is common to most Americans. Tanya Harter Pierce, author of Outsmart Your Cancer, calls this the “disbelief factor.” When I first began to learn about successful alternative cancer treatments almost a decade ago and would share the knowledge with others, the common response was “NO WAY!”

You see, the “no way” factor is based on the misperception that if alternative cancer treatments really worked, then there is “no way” that oncologists everywhere would still be using conventional treatments. What most of us don’t realize is that most oncologists also suffer from the “no way” factor since they believe that if alternative cancer treatments were effective, then there is simply “no way” that they would have graduated from medical school without hearing about them. Unfortunately, medical schools are largely funded by large pharmaceutical companies who have a vested interest in conventional treatments, since the main goal of all publicly traded companies (including pharmaceutical companies) is increasing shareholder profits.

The information in this book will likely shock you. At times, your natural reaction will be skepticism, doubt, and disbelief. I completely understand those reactions, as I have had them myself. We have all been brainwashed to react this way. A recent Johns Hopkins study found that television causes brain damage and an inability to exhibit critical thinking, so those of us that grew up glued to the television must overcome this brainwashing in order to free our minds. If you are able to step outside “the box” for a few hours while you read this book, I know you will be glad that you did. As a matter of fact, it may just save your life or the life of a loved one!

Conspiracy & the Cancer Industry

As the saying goes, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.” The truth is that conspiracy theories abound, and there are just as many websites on the internet to debunk them. Some of these conspiracy theories are nonsense, some of them are plausible, and some of them are quite likely the truth. Folks, from what I can see, the “cancer conspiracy” is alive and well.

But this is nothing new. In the introduction to his book The Healing of Cancer, Barry Lynes documents that this conspiracy has existed for over half a century: “In 1953, a U.S. Senate Investigation reported that a conspiracy existed to suppress effective cancer treatments. The Senator in charge of the investigation conveniently died. The investigation was halted. It was neither the first nor the last of a number of strange deaths involving people in positions to do damage to those running the nation’s cancer program.”

Mr. Lynes continues, “For many years, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) coordinated their ‘hit’ lists of innovative cancer researchers who were to be ostracized.” He quotes one investigative reporter as referring to the AMA and the ACS as a “network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices and profits.”

I used to believe that the “cancer conspiracy” was an unintentional result of the love of money and that there were really no malicious intentions at its roots. However, due to stories like the two that follow, I am rethinking my position on this topic.

In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infected human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells, and thirteen of them died. Despite the fact that Rhoads gave a written testimony stating he believed all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later established the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah and Panama, and was named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he began a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

Then, in 1963, Chester M. Southam (who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952) performed the same procedure on twenty‐two senile, African‐American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response. He told the patients that they were receiving “some cells,” but conveniently left out the fact that they were cancer cells. Ironically, Southam eventually became president of the American Association for Cancer Research!

Please note that the above are not merely isolated occurrences. There are hundreds more similar stories over the past century. Does this necessarily mean that all of the people who work in the medical field and the cancer research field are participating in human experimentation or are consciously part of a conspiracy to hold back a cure for cancer? Of course not. That notion is patently absurd. Most doctors, nurses, and health care professionals truly care about people and are doing what they honestly believe is best for their patients. As a matter of fact, almost everyone (including medical professionals) has been touched by cancer.

In his 1975 audio cassette “The Politics of Cancer,” G. Edward Griffin explains “let’s face it, these people die from cancer like everybody else…it’s obvious that these people are not consciously holding back a control [cure] for cancer. It does mean, however, that the [pharmaceutical‐chemical] cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests…if the money is coming from drug companies, or indirectly from drug companies, the impetus is in the direction of drug research. That doesn’t mean somebody blew the whistle and said ‘hey, don’t research nutrition!’ It just means that nobody is financing nutrition research. So it is a bias where scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest.”

In this book, Cancer‐Step Outside the Box, you will learn that the “emperors” parading themselves as medical “experts” concerning cancer treatment have no clothes!! I will demonstrate that for the past century, there has been a conspiracy to do the following:

• Suppress alternative cancer treatments and persecute those who advocate such treatments

• Brainwash the public to believe that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery (the “Big 3”) are the only viable options to treat cancer

• Advertise and sell the “Big 3,” since the goal of the “Cancer Industry” is to make money

First of all, let me define some basic terminology, nicknames, and slangs. “Big Medicine” is comprised of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American Medical Association (AMA). The ACS and NCI can be pictured as the varsity cheerleaders for the pharmaceutical giants, herein referred to as “Big Pharma,” while the AMA is nothing more than the doctor’s labor union.

The network of corporate polluters, Big Pharma, Big Medicine (aka the “Medical Mafia”), the FDA, industry front groups, and political lobbying groups comprise the “Cancer Industry,” whose goal is to maintain the status quo and keep the public unaware of alternative cancer treatments, thus insuring shareholder profits for Big Pharma.

In order to put things in perspective, let me tell you a little bit about the roots of Big Medicine and Big Pharma. Let’s put on our history caps and go all the way back to the year 1910 and learn about John D. Rockefeller and the Flexner Report. I’ll bet you’ve never heard of this report, have you? You see, Rockefeller’s goal was to dominate the oil, chemical, and pharmaceutical markets, so his company (Standard Oil of New Jersey) purchased a controlling interest in a huge German drug/chemical company called I.G. Farben.

-

In order to build his drug cartel, Rockefeller needed to “re‐educate” the medical profession to prescribe more pharmaceutical drugs, so he hired Abraham Flexner to travel the country and assess the success of U.S. medical schools. In reality, there was very little “assessing” going on by Flexner; the results of his study were predetermined. Eventually, Flexner submitted a report to The Carnegie Foundation entitled “Medical Education in the United States and Canada.” Not surprisingly, the gist of the report was that it was far too easy to start a medical school and that most medical schools were not teaching sound medicine. In other words, they weren’t pushing enough drugs.

Flexner reported that it was necessary to install a “doorkeeper” to determine which medical schools were allowed through the “medical door” and which ones must remain outside. The report was presented to Congress, and they swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. As we see quite often, politicians are quite willing to enact laws that rob us of our constitutional freedoms under the banner of “public protection.” Just look at what has happened to the USA since the “terrorist” attacks of September 11th.

So the AMA became the new doorkeeper and was empowered to determine which medical schools were properly following the standards of conventional medicine and which ones were not. Contrary to popular notion, the AMA is not a governmental entity. It is a private organization which began in 1847, and it is basically the “physicians’ union.” The only difference between the AMA and the steelworkers’ union is that the AMA members wear white collars, while the steelworkers wear blue collars.

You see, the predetermined purpose of the Flexner Report was to label doctors who didn’t prescribe drugs as “charlatans” and “quacks.” Medical schools that offered courses in natural therapies and homeopathy were told to either drop these courses from their curriculum or lose their accreditation. Is it any wonder that the total number of accredited medical schools in the U.S. was cut in half between 1910 and 1944? The end result of the Flexner Report was that all accredited medical schools became heavily oriented toward drugs and drug research.

Rockefeller’s plan was a smashing success, and conflicts of interest between Big Pharma and Big Medicine continue to this day. In his book, Cancer‐Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War, Dr. Samuel Epstein demonstrates that over the past century, the ACS, NCI, and AMA have all become corroded with major institutional and personal conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. As candidly admitted by a recent NCI director, the NCI has become a “government pharmaceutical company.” These close ties to Big Pharma have transformed Big Medicine into cheerleaders for special interests rather than stewards of the public interest. Epstein also chronicles how, for monetary reasons, the Cancer Industry is suppressing mountains of information about environmental causes of cancer rather than making this information available to the public.

In his book The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Dr. Epstein states that “the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups, with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right‐to‐know and effectively preventing them from taking  action to protect themselves – a flagrant denial of environmental justice.” But why is the Cancer Industry silent? It’s simple economics, folks. More cancer equals more sales of chemotherapy drugs, more radiation, and more surgery.

You see, money, rather than moral ethics, is the deciding factor for the Cancer Industry. To be honest, their goal is to provide temporary relief by treating the symptoms of cancer with drugs, while never addressing the cause of the cancer. This insures regular visits to the doctor’s office and requires the patient to routinely return to the pharmacy to refill his prescriptions. This is what the game is all about folks, plain and simple. Big Pharma is nothing more than a conglomeration of companies that can best be described as glorified drug pushers. Deny it or deal with it. Stick your head back in the sand if necessary. Think happy thoughts. Or keep reading and keep an open mind. It’s your choice.

I have one request: please don’t disregard the facts contained in this book just because your doctor never mentioned them to you, or because some of them are hard to believe, or because the alternative cancer treatments have been labeled “quackery” or “nonsense” by the Cancer Industry, or because many of them are diametrically opposed to the propaganda you hear on the nightly news. Please try to step “outside the box” and open your mind to the possibility that you have been lied to and that there are much more effective cancer treatments than the “Big 3” (chemo, radiation, & surgery). The late Dr. Robert Atkins put it best: “There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo.”

The Cancer War

The “War on Cancer” was officially declared by the Cancer Industry and the Federal Government in 1971, and enthusiastically signed into law by President Richard Nixon. Over the past almost four decades, it has in reality become a quagmire, a “medical Vietnam,” an endless, calculated “no‐win” war on cancer, since countless billions of dollars are being made each year by its perpetuation. Since 1971, over $2,000,000,000,000 (that’s two trillion dollars) has been spent on conventional cancer research and treatments.

Nevertheless, despite (or perhaps because of) these unparalleled costs, the Cancer Industry remains largely closed to innovative ideas in the realm of alternative cancer treatments. According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent twenty years on the staff of the NCI and was editor of its journal, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, “my overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure.”

As a matter of fact, the Cancer Industry has waged another war…a war with those who advocate the use of alternative cancer treatments. At the root of this new war is the almighty dollar. Don’t believe me? What are the top five alternative cancer treatments? Can you even name one alternative cancer treatment? Big Medicine and Big Pharma have the media in their pockets, thus the only cancer treatments known to most of us are the “Big 3.” Unless you are an internet junkie, it is likely that you have not been exposed to much good information about alternative cancer treatments. The truth is that since conventional treatments pay the best, they are touted as the most effective treatments. It’s all about the economics of cancer, not finding a cure.

Being a CPA, I tend to look at things from an “economic” perspective. And I must tell you that from an economic perspective, the Cancer Industry has the perfect business model. Big Pharma and the other chemical companies make huge profits from selling carcinogenic chemicals that are dumped (oftentimes intentionally) in our food, water, and air. Then, they make even more profits by manufacturing and selling expensive, ineffective, toxic drugs to treat the cancers and other diseases caused by their own products. Then, in baseball lingo, they complete the “triple play” by selling additional drugs to make the side‐effects of the primary drugs more bearable. In business lingo, the Cancer Industry is sitting on a “cash cow.” Unfortunately, this cash cow is a scam at the expense of cancer patients.

Adding insult to injury, they let John and Jane Taxpayer (i.e. you and me) fund their research into more ways to not cure cancer while still pushing their drugs at obscene profits. To ensure that the public remains blissfully unaware of the true facts about cancer, they have set up front group cheerleaders (like the ACS) to spread disinformation in the name of cancer education, while the rest of the Medical Mafia is busy fighting a hostile turf war to make sure that alternative cancer treatments remain suppressed and the doctors that use these treatments are persecuted and run out of the county.

One of the ways that this turf war is fought is through advertising. Not only does Big Pharma make billions of dollars annually on the sale of drugs, but they also dump billions of dollars into the advertising of prescription drugs each year. And, since people in America typically make their key decisions based solely on what they see on TV and what they hear on the radio, is it any wonder that we are largely uninformed concerning alternative cancer treatments? The Cancer Industry has done everything in its power to make sure you do not know the truth about alternative cancer treatments. The TV stations and other media don’t dare broadcast anything which may hurt one of their biggest advertisers – Big Pharma.

Back in 1996, had we been aware of the successful alternative cancer treatments available, my dad may not have died. I am angered and disgusted that the Cancer Industry suppresses alternative cancer treatments, persecutes doctors that utilize them, and makes it next to impossible to gain access to these treatments, thus causing the death of untold millions of cancer victims. This next true story will break your heart.

The Alexander Horwin Story

(in the words of his mother, Raphaele)

“On August 10, 1998 at age two, our son Alexander Horwin was diagnosed with the most common pediatric brain tumor, medulloblastoma. After Alexander endured two brain surgeries my husband and I located the best non‐toxic therapy that had proven successful in treating brain cancer. However, on September 21, 1998, the FDA denied Alexander access to this potentially life‐saving treatment.

The oncologists told us that without their “state‐of‐the‐art” chemotherapy, the cancer would soon return. We knew nothing of the history, efficacy and actual danger of chemotherapy but instinctively knew it was a poor choice for therapy. However, now that the FDA had denied Alexander his best chance of survival using a non‐toxic therapy that had saved other children, we had no other treatment options left. Reluctantly we started chemo on October 7, 1998. The protocol was entitled CCG 9921 which consisted of intravenous administration of four chemo drugs: vincristine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide (also called cytoxan), and VP16 (also called etoposide). Alexander completed his third month of chemotherapy in December 1998 and died on January 31, 1999. He was just two and a half years old.” www.ouralexander.org

Yes, there is definitely a war between the Cancer Industry and advocates of alternative cancer treatments. If you believe that Big Medicine acts in the public’s best interest, then perhaps you should read the book written by the first director the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, M.D. Dr. Wiley helped establish the FDA in 1906. In The History of the Crime Against the Food Law, he describes the absolute corruption that occurred within just a few years of its founding. He quickly realized that its initial purpose had been subverted. He resigned and then he wrote the book.

The same problems have persisted at the FDA for almost a century. Big Medicine has a history of corruption and conflict of interests with Big Pharma. According to former FDA commissioner, Dr. Herbert Ley, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 1, 1970: “the thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.”

In 1969, Dr. Ley testified before the Senate committee and described several cases of deliberate dishonesty in drug testing. One case involved a professor who had tested almost 100 drugs for 28 different drug companies. Dr. Ley testified, “Patients who died, left the hospital, or dropped out of the study were replaced by other patients in the tests without notification in the records. Forty‐one patients reported as participating in studies were dead or not in the hospital during the studies.” (U.S. Senate, Competitive Problems in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 1969)

In the early 1970’s, an “internal affairs” type of FDA study revealed that one in five doctors who carry out field research of new drugs had “invented the data” they sent to the drug companies and pocketed the fees. In other words, 20% of the doctors just made stuff up! (Science, 1973, vol. 180, p. 1038). According to Dr. Judith Jones, former Director of the Division of Drug Experience at the FDA, if the data obtained by a clinician proves unsatisfactory towards the drug being investigated, it is standard operating procedure for the drug company to continue trials elsewhere until they get the satisfactory results and testimonials they desire. Unfavorable results are almost never published and clinicians are pressured into shutting up. (Arabella Melville & Colin Johnson, Cured to Death ‐ The Effects of Prescription Drugs)

Keep in mind that the incentive for clinicians to fabricate data (lie) is enormous. According to John Braithwaite in his book Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Big Pharma pays up to $1,000 per subject, thus enabling many of these doctors to earn over $1 million a year from drug research alone. And don’t be fooled – these doctors know very well that if they do not produce “favorable results” for Big Pharma, that their “gravy train” will soon come to a screeching halt. Folks, the deck is stacked in this cancer war; it’s heavily stacked against successful alternative cancer treatments.

To succeed in the cancer war, we must have people with the intestinal fortitude to speak out without fear of being labeled “politically incorrect” or a “conspiracy theorist.” Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, is one such warrior. In his ever‐so‐candid style, he writes: “Western medicine has failed our people. Today, even while prescription drugs are more frequently consumed than ever before in the history of civilization, our nation has skyrocketing rates of obesity and chronic disease. Western medicine simply does not work. It is an outmoded system of medicine dominated by the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies, power‐hungry officials at the FDA, and old school doctors whose myopic view of health prevents them from exploring the true causes of healing. Modern medical schools don’t even teach healing or nutrition. No practitioner of western medicine has ever taught me a single thing about being healthy.” www.naturalnews.com/adamshealthstats.html

My friend Webster Kehr describes the war in the following manner: “When people hear the term ‘war,’ they think of guns, tanks, jet airplanes and soldiers. They think about mindless tyrants shaking their fists on television. But the war in medicine is very different. The tyrants in this war hide their real intentions. This is a ‘war’ where the weapons are information. Welcome to the 21st century, the century where Americas most dangerous and deadly enemies are within.” www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Believe.html

This cancer war is one of the most costly frauds (in terms of money and human suffering) that have ever been perpetrated on the American public. Staggering amounts of money have been spent in its pursuit, but the “cancer emperor” is naked. According to C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters: “The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well‐lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails, and smooth‐shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like...the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”

---

Now that we have that out of the way, here is a Summary of a lecture presented in November 2022 by…

Professor Peter Elwood

Honorary Professor, Cardiff University

There is a remarkable harmony between the effects of aspirin on the biological mechanisms of cancer metabolism and growth, and clinical evidence of reductions in cancer mortality and metastatic cancer spread.

Although aspirin increases the number of bleeds, the severity of bleeds attributable to aspirin is low, and the risk-benefit balance of aspirin appears to be favourable to aspirin.

Aspirin and cancer: the emerging evidence

[Time stamped navigation in footnote¹]

Comprehensive Summary:

Introduction

• The lecture was given by Professor Peter Elwood, an honorary professor at the Institute of Primary Care and Public Health at the University of Cardiff.

• Prof. Elwood has over 50 years of research experience focused on disease prevention. He is most well-known for his pioneering research on aspirin and heart disease.

• The lecture focuses on Prof. Elwood's more recent work over the past 12-13 years researching the effects of aspirin on cancer, specifically:

  • The safety of aspirin

  • Using aspirin as an additional treatment for cancer

• Prof. Elwood emphasizes the extensive research backing up his findings, with collaboration across countries and disciplines.

How Prof. Elwood Initially Got Into Aspirin Research

• In 1963 when Prof. Elwood joined the faculty at Cardiff University, he learned of previous research happening at a local hospital in 1954 on using high doses of aspirin to treat heart attacks. However, patients couldn't tolerate the high doses.

• Prof. Elwood felt there was potential in this hypothesis, so he and his colleague Dr. Archie Cochran set up one of the first randomized control trials studying whether aspirin could help prevent deaths from heart attacks.

• Their initial study published in 1974 with 1,400 participants showed that aspirin reduced heart attacks and deaths by 24% compared to placebo. This catalyzed decades of additional research on aspirin for heart disease and stroke prevention.

The Safety of Aspirin

• To accurately evaluate aspirin's risk-benefit profile, you need to look at both the potential benefits AND the potential risks.

• The biggest risk with taking aspirin is increased potential for stomach bleeding. However, analysis shows the risk of serious or fatal bleeding is not higher compared to placebo.

• Prof. Elwood presents extensive research, including a review of 11 randomized control trials with over 100,000 participants, showing that:

  • While aspirin increases overall stomach bleeds, it does not increase risk of fatal bleeds.

  • Only about 3 out of 8 bleeds are actually attributable to aspirin, the rest are likely due to underlying stomach pathology.

  • The fatality rate of bleeds caused by aspirin is half that of underlying stomach pathology (4% vs 8%).

• Several other large reviews of randomized data confirm bleeding risks attributable to aspirin are not generally serious or fatal.

Biological Mechanisms of Aspirin in Cancer

• Prof. Elwood and colleagues published a paper in September 2022 showing extensive evidence supporting the prediction that aspirin's effects on biological mechanisms involved in cancer growth and spread leads to reduced cancer progression and mortality.

• A key mechanism is enhancing DNA repair. DNA errors can lead to cancer, and aspirin helps detect and fix these errors in cells.

• A rare hereditary condition, Lynch Syndrome, increases malignancy risk due to DNA mismatch issues. NICE already recommends aspirin for patients with this condition based on evidence of benefit. There are an estimated 30,000 unknown carriers in the UK that could benefit from knowing this.

Evidence from Studies on Aspirin's Impact on Cancer Outcomes Observational Studies:

• Most of the evidence presented is from observational studies following almost 1 million cancer patients over time. About 25% reported taking aspirin.

• Limitations of observational data exist, but the analysis accounts for statistical differences between aspirin and non-aspirin groups.

• Overall for all 18 cancer types studied, aspirin takers had:

  • 26% lower cancer mortality

  • 20% lower all-cause mortality

• For colon cancer, 25 studies show 26% lower cancer mortality for aspirin users.

• For less common cancers, 36 studies show 20% lower cancer mortality for aspirin users.

• Additional studies show greater survival durations for aspirin users across cancer types. For example, 27% 3-year survival for liver cancer patients taking aspirin versus 11% without.

• One modeling study predicted 4-5 extra years survival for colorectal cancer patients taking aspirin.

Randomized Trials:

• Randomized control trials provide the most definitive evidence but are challenging to execute for cancer prevention. Still, available randomized trial data supports aspirin's benefits:

  • Early meta-analysis of 5 trials showed 9% mortality reduction trend.

  • Study of prostate cancer patients from a larger randomized trial showed 32% reduction for aspirin group.

  • Follow-up study by Oxford researcher with patients from 51 previous heart disease trials found significantly lower long-term cancer deaths for those originally randomized to aspirin across multiple reports.

• However, one recent trial with advanced breast cancer patients was stopped early due to significantly MORE cancer progression and deaths in the aspirin group. This data needs to be considered as well.

Key Questions Around Recommendations

• Who should evaluate all this evidence further to make clinical recommendations? Government health agencies like NICE have not acted with urgency so far. Cancer specialists have been informed but may be waiting for additional evidence. Primary care doctors have access but may hesitate without formal recommendations.

• Should we wait for the results of additional ongoing randomized trials before changing recommendations broadly? These can take many years and test limited cancer types. In contrast, aspirin is already proven highly safe.

• Considering aspirin's safety and existing evidence showing benefit, is it ethical for doctors and researchers to withhold this information from cancer patients pending further studies?

Role for Informed Patient Decision-Making

• Medical ethics support patients' right to participate in informed decisions about their care options. While not definitive, there is enough evidence to warrant discussions with cancer patients about aspirin's potential benefits and negligible risks.

• UK Supreme Court rulings assert information that could be considered medically 'material' should be proactively disclosed and discussed with patients, rather than waiting for them to ask questions on their own.

• Survey results presented from a 'citizen’s jury' consisting of 16 public members unanimously agreed health information should be more freely shared with patients to involve them in decisions, even before full medical consensus.

Conclusion

• In summary, extensive research on aspirin's mechanisms show it plausibly affects cancer progression. Observational clinical data overwhelmingly supports anti-cancer benefits, while risks like bleeding have proven to be minimal. Some randomized trials also back up these findings.

• While not definitively proven, the totality of evidence indicates aspirin likely helps cancer patients live longer with very low risk, warranting patient discussions rather than withholding information awaiting further studies. Wider recommendations could have massive global implications for cancer outcomes spanning all income levels.

Key takeaways:

1. Professor Peter Elwood has been studying the preventive effects of aspirin for over 50 years, including extensive pioneering research on reducing heart disease.

2. More recently over the past 12-13 years, Prof. Elwood has focused research specifically on aspirin's effects in cancer patients.

3. Prof. Elwood emphasizes that his conclusions are backed up by extensive collaboration with researchers across disciplines and countries.

4. One early study from Prof. Elwood and colleague Dr. Archie Cochrane demonstrated aspirin reduced subsequent heart attacks and mortality by 24% compared to placebo, catalyzing further research over following decades.

5. Concerns around risks like stomach bleeding have been raised with routine aspirin use. However, analysis of extensive randomized trial data shows that while overall stomach bleeding episodes increase slightly, the rates of serious bleeding complications including bleeding deaths are no higher with aspirin compared to placebo.

6. Prof. Elwood published a recent paper highlighting many identified biological mechanisms through which aspirin plausibly exerts protective effects against cancer progression at the cellular level.

7. An evaluation across nearly 1 million cancer patients using observational data shows roughly 25% reported taking aspirin, and rates of cancer death were 20-26% lower in aspirin users compared to non-users.

8. Modeling studies predict 4-5 extra years of life for colorectal cancer patients taking aspirin, compared to non-users.

9. While fewer in number due to required effort and expense, randomized controlled trials in cancer populations also suggest reduced mortality in those assigned to take aspirin consistently.

10. A Supreme Court ruling asserted doctors should disclose medical information to patients proactively that could be reasonably considered 'material' to their care decisions, rather than waiting for the patient to ask questions first.

11. Survey results from a public "citizen's jury" unanimously agreed patients should receive information related to medical decisions routinely, without waiting for doctor consensus first.

12. While not definitively proven to standards typically expected, the accumulated safety and observational outcome data suggest aspirin is likely reducing cancer deaths significantly, warranting discussions around its optional use with cancer patients rather than withholding information awaiting further studies.

13. Translating this research into recommendations could ultimately save lives across developed and underdeveloped countries equally, with global implications against cancer through a low cost intervention in aspirin.

14. Key open access research publications fully detailing findings are available for public access on both the safety evidence and observed correlation data of aspirin in cancer patients.

15. Government health agencies have not responded to this evidence with appropriate urgency thus far. Professional oncology associations have also been slow to evaluate the findings.

16. Lack of financial incentive means major research funding from pharmaceutical companies is unlikely to further study aspirin in cancer.

17. Compliance in taking aspirin consistently over long periods seems to be a significant issue further complicating study analysis and observations. Monitoring long term adherence to the dosing regimen proves challenging.

18. Iterating that while not definitively proven through randomized trials, the safety profile of aspirin means withholding the currently available observational evidence from cancer patients could reasonably be questioned ethically at this point.

19. Worldwide there are over 200 identified cancers, so awaiting randomized trials across all subtypes separately will delay benefits realization for generations. Prioritizing further research should accelerate based on favorable risk benefit assessment.

20. Both affluent and disadvantaged groups could see upside from accelerating translation of this research into patient care recommendations more rapidly.

Excerpts:

1. "I learned of some work that was going on in in Devil Hall Hospital what's happened next what did I do uh work what's going on in Neville Hall hospital and I got to know these two men and made friends of them could their work commenced away back in 1954."

2. "our study eventually had a hundred and thousand or 1400 patients in it I told him if it was cancer we'd need at least four times that size and probably four or five times the duration of the trial I just didn't have the resources to do that but 25 years later opportunity arose for work on aspirin cancer"

3. "the effects of Aspen upon biological mechanisms involved attention everyone not a chance don't tell them the effects of aspirin upon biological mechanisms involved in the development and growth of cancer appear to generate reasonable expectations of effects upon the progress and mortality of cancer"

4. "colon cancer cancer mortality there are 25 studies and they show a 26 reduction in mortality and deaths in those on aspirin all cause mortality 22 studies published data on all causes of death and it's 20 percent"

5. "there's a huge literature on a reduction by aspirin in metastatic cancer spread many of the deaths and much of the pain and distress of cancer comes from this spread of cancer from the original lesion to other organs and other parts of the body so there's a huge literature on that which I'm not going to take time to put to you"

6. "now one group used another approach to this and they did modeling we all may be quite suspicious of modeling studies after the disaster with covert and the answers that were got from modeling studies but a group in Liverpool used data from over 44 000 patients with colon cancer to derive a predictive equation which would relate a number of factors present a diagnosis of cancer to the duration of survival"

7. "Government health agencies like NICE have not acted with urgency so far. Cancer specialists have been informed but may be waiting for additional evidence. Primary care doctors have access but may hesitate without formal recommendations."

8. "Survey results from a public "citizen's jury" unanimously agreed patients should receive information related to medical decisions routinely, without waiting for doctor consensus first."

9. "A Supreme Court ruling asserted doctors should disclose medical information to patients proactively that could be reasonably considered 'material' to their care decisions, rather than waiting for the patient to ask questions first."

10. "Translating this research into recommendations could ultimately save lives across developed and underdeveloped countries equally, with global implications against cancer through a low cost intervention in aspirin."

Statistics:

1. 24% reduction in heart attacks and deaths in aspirin group compared to placebo in Elwood's first major study published in 1974

2. Around 1 million total cancer patients included across the observational studies summarized, with around 25% reporting aspirin use

3. 26% lower cancer mortality for aspirin users across studies evaluating 18 different cancer types

4. 20% lower all-cause mortality for aspirin users across 22 studies

5. 26% lower colon cancer mortality across 25 studies for aspirin users

6. 20% lower mortality for less common cancers across 36 studies for aspirin users

7. 27% 3-year survival rate for liver cancer patients taking aspirin versus 11% for non-aspirin group

8. Model predicted 4-5 extra years survival for colorectal cancer patients taking aspirin

9. 32% lower prostate cancer incidence over follow-up period for participants originally randomized to aspirin group

10. 40% patient non-compliance rate taking aspirin observed in large Australian Osprey trial over 5 year follow up

---

Thanks for being here.

Please consider a paid subscription.

You will get nothing more for your support, as everything is made freely available. The money simply goes towards recovering some of the cost of this work.

I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com

If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment

If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes

If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a “safe” chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.

Here are all eBooks and Summaries produced so far:

FREE Book Summary: The HPV Vaccine on Trial by Holland et al.

FREE Book Summary: Bitten by Kris Newby (Lyme Disease)

FREE Book Summary: The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick

FREE Book Summary: Propaganda by Edward Bernays

FREE Book Summary: Toxic Legacy by Stephanie Seneff (Glyphosate)

FREE Book Summary: The Measles Book by CHD

FREE Book Summary: The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold (Abiogenic Oil)

FREE Book Summary: The Peanut Allergy Epidemic by Heather Fraser

FREE eBook: What is a woman? - “We don’t know yet.”

FREE eBook: The Climate™

FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein

1. With thanks to @makingcookingfixing

Summarized for quick navigation:

00:01 Introduction to Professor Peter Elwood

- Professor Peter Elwood's background and qualifications,

- Overview of his extensive research spanning over 50 years, particularly in disease prevention.

02:26 Initiating Aspirin Research and Early Trials

- Formation of the Kefili cohort study in 1979,

- Initial randomized controlled trial on aspirin in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction,

- Recognition of the simplicity of aspirin's molecular structure and its historical roots in herbal medicine.

08:41 Entry into Aspirin and Cancer Research

- Overview of Professor Elwood's transition into aspirin and cancer research in 2009,

- Reference to the Lancet review on aspirin, salicylates, and cancer,

- Establishment of the groundwork for subsequent studies on aspirin and cancer.

09:23 Safety of Aspirin: Stomach Bleed Analysis

- Comprehensive analysis of a systematic literature search on stomach bleeds attributed to aspirin,

- Focus on the severity of bleeds, particularly fatal ones,

- Clarification of the misconception regarding fatal bleeds linked to aspirin.

13:19 Risk-Benefit Analysis of Aspirin

- Discussion of risk-benefit balance concerning stomach bleeds and reduction in cancer deaths,

- Emphasis on the trivial nature of most stomach bleeds and the rarity of serious or fatal bleeds,

- Clarification of the misleading claims about aspirin causing fatal bleeds.

23:23 Aspirin's Biological Mechanisms and Clinical Outcomes

- Overview of the recent publication on biological mechanisms and clinical outcomes of aspirin,

- Highlighting the harmony between aspirin's effects on biological mechanisms and clinical outcomes,

- Specific mention of the role of aspirin in enhancing DNA repair mechanisms.

27:23 Aspirin as Additional Cancer Treatment: Observational Studies

- Explanation of the limitations of observational studies in assessing aspirin's impact on cancer patients,

- Reference to the extensive literature search covering around a million patients with cancer,

- Acknowledgment of the complexity and variability in measures of mortality used across studies.

29:21 Overview of Cancer Mortality Studies

- Analysis of 118 published observational reports on cancer mortality.

- Focus on all-cause mortality using Hazard ratio and odds ratio.

- Bottom-line results for colon cancer show a 26% reduction in mortality.

30:44 Evidence Across Different Cancers

- Inclusion of 36 reports on less common cancers with a 20% reduction in mortality.

- Validation of the approach to study all cancers, not just common ones.

- Duration of additional survival varies across cancers, emphasizing individualized considerations.

35:24 Modeling Approach to Survival Prediction

- Liverpool group's predictive equation suggests a 5-year increase in colon cancer survival with aspirin.

- Acknowledgment of skepticism towards modeling studies.

- Importance of considering modeling results in the context of other evidence.

37:12 Challenges of Observational Studies and Randomized Control Trials

- Limitations of observational studies: differences in patient characteristics.

- Randomized control trials' difficulty due to the lack of commercial interest in aspirin.

- Highlighting low compliance with aspirin, especially in long-term studies.

40:51 Randomized Trial Results and Subgroup Challenges

- Overview of Rothwell's long-term follow-up studies suggesting lower cancer deaths with aspirin.

- Mention of the recent trial on advanced breast cancer with a 27% increase in relapses.

- Caution on interpreting subgroup results, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluation.

42:43 Summary and Ethical Considerations

- Safety of aspirin established beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Lack of definitive proof on effectiveness but promising biological mechanisms.

- Ethical duty to inform the public about evidence, considering the legal and ethical framework.

46:08 Public Involvement and Global Impact

- Advocacy for public involvement in health decisions.

- Reference to a citizen's jury supporting patient involvement.

- Potential global impact of promoting aspirin for cancer prevention.

49:12 References to Publications

- Three key publications summarizing safety, clinical evidence, and biological mechanisms.

- Emphasis on open-access journals for accessibility.

- Encouragement for further exploration and understanding of the presented evidence.