A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies, With Filmmaker Mike Anderson
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
Mike: In fact, if you take the full million people, or half-million
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
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.
Kevin Gianni the host of "Renegade Health Show" - a fun and informative
daily health show that is changing the perception of health across the
world. His is an internationally known health advocate, author, and film
consultant. He has helped thousands and thousands of people in over 21
countries though online health teleseminars about abundance, optimum
health and longevity. He is also the creator and co-author of "The Busy
Person's Fitness Solution."