Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Cancer is a $125 BILLION dollar industry that is growing, not declining. The industry is dependent on more cancer patients, not less. A “cure” for cancer would put millions of people out of work, and destroy the U.S. economy.
At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life, and that percentage will soon be one out of two.
With the regime change in American politics about to take place, it appears that the outgoing administration is attempting to empower the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps in an attempt to secure future careers beyond politics. We recently saw evidence of this with the lame-duck Congress passing the 21st Century Cures Act. See:
National Vaccine Information Center Calls 21st Century Cures Act “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” and Urges Presidential Veto to Protect Public Health
Outgoing Vice President Joseph Biden recently released the first report of a new government cancer task force, the Cancer Moonshot Task Force.
We had investigative health reporter John P. Thomas look into just what this task force entails for the American public, and it appears that it increases cancer spending resulting in more profits for pharmaceutical companies, depends on no cures, and potentially will remove medical privacy and give government power to punish people who do not follow their medical advice.
See John P. Thomas’ previous reports on the Cancer Industry:
Is the U.S. Government Serious About Curing Cancer or Causing it?
by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News
According to an official U.S. government report, its new plans will put an end to cancer in five years. This will be accomplished through the leadership of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force. 
I can summarize the Cancer Moonshot Task Force report in a single sentence, “Let’s join forces and work twice as hard doing the same old things that we’ve been doing for the last 45 years and cure cancer.” If that was all that was in the report, I wouldn’t even waste my time writing about it or suggest that you read about it.
However, in this case, the government recommendations are likely to increase the rates of cancer rather than curing it. The report ignores existing treatments used by alternative health practitioners, which have been proven to cure cancer, and sets the stage for stripping away our remaining health freedom and medical privacy.
The Grand Vision of the Cancer Moonshot
In October 2016, after 9 months of work, Vice-President Joseph Biden released the first report of the task force. The report described the mission of the Moonshot:
The mission of this Cancer Moonshot is not to start another war on cancer, but to win the one President Nixon declared in 1971. At that time, we didn’t have the army organized, didn’t have the military intelligence to know the enemy well, and therefore didn’t have the comprehensive strategy needed to launch a successful attack—now we do. Because of the progress over the last 45 years we have an army of researchers and oncologists, the powerful technologies and weapons, and immense public support and commitment to action. 
Cancer Moonshot is a Marketing Campaign
In general, the flavor of the report is similar to a pep talk that a coach might give to a sports team when the team is nearing the biggest game of the season. I summarized some of the key recommendations from the government report in the following narrative. I translated the bureaucratic marketing language into common English, and highlighted a few phrases in italics to draw attention to the potentially hidden agenda that lies just below the surface. I will discuss these phrases in the next sections. This is my summary of key points from the Cancer Moonshot Task Force:
This team is great, because of its talented members! But if we are going to be victorious over our foe, then we must play the game as if we were one united super-human army.
Gone are the days of self-interest, self-promotion, and secrecy! It is now the time of disclosure and close cooperation!
Public and private sectors need to work together. Drug companies need to share their data and their plans for drug development. The FDA and the Patent and Trademark Office must make new drug approvals quicker. Various incentives and contractual requirements should be used to obtain the participation of healthcare providers in the full implementation of a modern interoperable electronic health ecosystem.
Patients should agree to have all their medical records computerized, centralized, and made available to cancer researchers to achieve healthcare interoperability.
Patients need to volunteer in larger numbers for clinical trials, and they need to stick with their commitments and don’t drop out of the trials just because they are getting sicker and dying.
We need to inspire the world community. We need to get them to start new foundations so more money can flow into the pharmaceutical companies.
We need to muster the participation of individuals and countries to give generously and to act like the little girls who set up lemonade stands to raise money for their classmates with cancer. Everyone must chip in if we are going to win this battle. We have scientists, we have doctors, we have cancer centers and laboratories, we have lots of sick people, but we need more money! We have companies and entrepreneurs developing cures and technologies, but they need more money. And we need the Congress to step up and provide massive increases in funding for cancer research and care.
We must unite our resources and save humankind from this horrid enemy. We must use every strategy at our disposal especially the strategy of increasing HPV vaccination rates by raising awareness about the importance of vaccinating males and females ages 11-12, and maximizing access to and opportunities for vaccination.
Now stand up, be strong, don’t let your guard down, and let’s go after this menace! LET’S GO!
The government’s Cancer Moonshot Task Force report can be read at this link:
I want to pay close attention to three important topics that were highlighted in italics in my summary. They were:
- modern interoperable electronic health ecosystem,
- companies and entrepreneurs developing cures and technologies in the right way and for the right reasons, and
- increasing HPV vaccination rates by raising awareness about the importance of vaccinating males and females ages 11-12, and maximizing access to and opportunities for vaccination.
These three phrases are red flags that do not bode well for the future health of Americans and for our health freedom. Let’s take a look at each of these phrases to see what the Cancer Moonshot experts are actually talking about.
HPV Vaccination is one of the Crown Jewels of the Cancer Moonshot Program
Even though 10% of girls who take the HPV vaccine develop serious reactions that require medical intervention from hospital emergency rooms , the U.S. government’s Cancer Moonshot Task Force is targeting both girls and boys age 12 and 13 for more HPV vaccination. 
In a review of scientific literature presented to the 4th International Symposium on Vaccines, Leipzig, Germany, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., showed that the HPV vaccine is very unlikely to reduce rates of cervical cancer. She further explained that it might not even provide long-term prevention of human papilloma viral infections. Additionally, it is impossible to predict whether the HPV vaccines given to teenagers can actually protect them from the very small number of cervical cancer cases that might develop in 20 to 40 years. 
Dr. Tomljenovic cited research that shows that HPV vaccination does not offer any greater benefit than existing PAP screening programs. She stated:
…Since the implementation of PAP screening programs, the cervical cancer incidence has fallen dramatically. For example in the U.S. about 8 of 100,000 will develop the disease each year and there is only 1 to 2 cases of mortality per 100,000. Obviously, one wants to prevent every case, but the question is can the HPV vaccine reduce the incidence of cervical cancer beyond what has already been achieved by PAP screening. And the answer to that is most likely no. 
Watch Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic’s complete presentation:
Even more startling is the fact that when the HPV vaccine is given to girls or women who already have human papilloma virus anywhere in their bodies, then the vaccine actually increases the risk for cancer! 
Dr. Suzanne Humphries conducted an extensive investigation into the historical documentation of the HPV vaccine approval process and the scientific literature about HPV vaccine safety and efficacy. She uncovered several stunning facts which she spoke about on Vaxxed TV.
She found studies that show that some cases of cervical cancer are not related to HPV. This means that not all cervical cancers will be prevented by the HPV vaccine. There are also cervical cancers that are associated with HPV strains that are not in the vaccines. 
She explained that HPV vaccines do not directly prevent cervical cancer, rather they are intended to prevent certain human papilloma viruses from making changes in cells. These changes are called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). CIN is not cancer — it is simply a change in cellular morphology or the appearance of cells. 
CIN is related to HPV infection, but it is also related to having low vitamin D levels, to smoking, and to having multiple sexual partners. This means people can reduce their risks of developing CIN by paying attention to nutrition, increasing vitamin D levels, by stopping smoking, etc. The HPV vaccine is not the only choice. 
Dr. Humphries stated:
If we are just going to focus on HPV and CIN, then people need to know that there are three stages of CIN. If you have CIN1, then 70% of those regress, meaning go away – the HPV goes away – the change in the cells go away in one year, and 90% will be gone in two years. In CIN2, 50% will regress in two years and many will regress as time goes on. In CIN3 it takes longer to regress and fewer of them regress. And then you move on to carcinoma … and then on to invasive cancer where the cancer can grow into the walls of the vagina or up into the uterus. … There is no such thing as a good cancer, but as far as cancer goes, this is not one that is going to take you over night.
The other thing is that we [physicians] are recommending the vaccine for people between 9 and 26. We also need to understand that the typical age for CIN is 25 to 35, and that the antibodies [produced by the HPV vaccine] at best are lasting 8 years … but for many of these strains the antibodies are gone after 4 years.. So we are vaccinating these young kids for a cancer that they are not going to have, more than likely, until they are 25 to 35 and by that time the vaccine effect will have worn off.
I think if there was a vaccine that was safe and effective, I wouldn’t be giving it to people that are this young. But, they think that if they get in there with a vaccine early, then they can prevent colonization of HPVs, which is also absurd. Babies are born with these HPVs. … We know that tonsillectomies have them in the throat. We find them all over the body in humans at all different ages including at birth.
The real problem with this is if you have a strain in your body of these cancer associated HPVs and then you get the vaccine, then you have what is called negative efficacy of the vaccine, which is a very undesirable situation, because you can actually develop cancer as a result of getting the vaccine when you have these HPVs in your body. 
Watch the complete presentation given by Dr. Humphries:
Vaccines Do Not Provide Lifelong Immunity
A landmark study published in March of 2016 is a major threat to Big Pharma’s claims regarding their vaccine products. This study warns us that CDC and Big Pharma scientists are ignoring the fact that their vaccines don’t actually modify T-cells in the immune system to produce lifelong immunity. In other words, the HPV vaccine and other vaccines primarily create antigens, which have a short life. The real test for vaccine efficacy is to measure changes in T-cells, which can live for many decades. The analysis showed that vaccines don’t produce long term changes and T-cells are not affected. This means that vaccine therapy as it is now designed is actually flawed at its source. 
The authors published their analysis in the journal, Trends in Immunology. They stated:
Inducing sustained, robust CD8+ T cell responses is necessary for therapeutic intervention in chronic infectious diseases and cancer. Unfortunately, most adjuvant formulations fail to induce substantial cellular immunity in humans. Attenuated acute infectious agents induce strong CD8+ T cell immunity, and are thought to therefore represent a good road map for guiding the development of subunit vaccines capable of inducing the same. However, recent evidence suggests that this assumption may need reconsideration. Here we provide an overview of subunit vaccine history as it pertains to instigating T cell responses. We argue that in light of evidence demonstrating that T cell responses to vaccination differ from those induced by infectious challenge, research in pursuit of cellular immunity-inducing vaccine adjuvants should no longer follow only the infection paradigm. 
In terms of HPV vaccines, this means that children vaccinated with the HPV vaccines will receive no long-term benefit for preventing HPV infection and cancer by the time they are in their 20s and 30s. They however, will have the potential for increased rates of cancer from having received the vaccine.
Modern Interoperable Electronic Health Ecosystem – Say Goodbye to Medical Privacy
The term “modern interoperable electronic health ecosystem” is easy to overlook in the Moonshot report. It is important, because it points to a new system that will have the capacity, when fully implemented, to monitor everything in our lives related to “health” and “illness.”
This is what the U.S. government has to say about the interoperable electronic health ecosystem, as explained on its websites:
The Roadmap, shaped by stakeholder input, lays out a clear path to catalyze the collaboration of stakeholders who are going to build and use the health IT infrastructure. The collaborative efforts of stakeholders is crucial to achieving the vision of a learning health system where individuals are at the center of their care; providers have a seamless ability to securely access and use health information from different sources; an individual’s health information is not limited to what is stored in electronic health records (EHRs), but includes information from many different sources and portrays a longitudinal picture of their health, not just episodes of care; and where public health agencies and researchers can rapidly learn, develop, and deliver cutting edge treatments. ” 
In other words, the interoperable electronic health ecosystem will be a comprehensive information database that includes information about every aspect of our lives as it relates to the broad category of health.
Another U.S. government website gives us more information about the scope of the plan. It states:
For example, data, consistent with applicable laws, would or could be electronically exchanged (e.g., treatment, payment, research, quality improvement, public health reporting, population health management). 
What data might the various stakeholders want to collect?
Let’s think practically. They of course will want our complete medical records, which means any and every contact we have with any kind of conventional healthcare provider and the pharmaceutical drugs we have taken.
Will it stop there?
No! My chiropractor, for example has fully electronic records complete with my photo. How long will it take before these records are pulled into this system? What about other healthcare providers who do not agree with the one size fits all allopathic medical model? Are their records going to be required to be included? What about homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritional consultants, Christian counselors, etc.?
This hungry system will seek to devour all the data it can find in order to portray a longitudinal picture of our health, and not just episodes of care.
As the policy guidelines state, their database will also include our history of “payments.” This means a history of financial transactions. This means what we paid, what we haven’t paid, the source of funds paid, and other financial information such as legal findings related to our financial status such as bankruptcy, liens, loans, and any other situation that might negatively affect our ability to pay our healthcare bills.
The other categories of data collection open the door to all kinds of data mining about our personal life. Research could be expanded in many directions. Have we participated in conventional medical research? Are the results of medical research such as experimental genetic testing going to appear in our medical history? Is our data going to be included in medical research without our permission?
New Forced Medical Procedures?
The category of “quality improvement” is interesting. Is the quality of our health improving or declining according to the standards of the conventional medical system? We might think, based on research, moderately high blood pressure and moderately high cholesterol are not health risks, but Big Pharma and the doctors and nurses they have trained have a very different opinion. They might conclude that we are at a high risk for numerous illnesses and might produce extra expenditures for the healthcare system if we don’t get on cholesterol lowering and blood pressure lowering drugs.
In fact, I was harassed by a nurse at a local doctor’s office, who insisted that I take such drugs, because she didn’t like my numbers. She and the doctors in that office were completely unaware of alternative studies that place serious doubt on the claims of pharmaceutical companies. In her mind, I needed to be on drugs to be “healthy” even if the side effects actually make me sick.
Punishment for those Who do Not Follow Doctors’ Orders?
The two last categories, “public health reporting and population health management,” are open doors to every kind of data collection you can imagine.
Public health agencies love to collect data about illnesses and physical/mental/emotional capacities, and to compare data with conventional CDC recommendations. They will look at every reason we have participated in the healthcare system and will stratify the data according to age, sex, physical location, financial income, and of course vaccination history.
They will identify those whom they believe pose a risk to the collective health status of the country because of not participating in vaccination programs. They will rate our level of mental or physical disability, i.e., our ability to be an active/contributing member of society, to determine when we will qualify for end of life counselling or future euthanasia programs.
I can imagine they will compile lists of people who refuse vaccination and who are using alternative healthcare. They will likely track people according to the medications they take and identify couples who have large numbers of children. They will find out who is taking psychotropic pharmaceuticals and who has refused to take such medications. They will find out who eats organic food and rejects GMOs and junk food, etc.
They will use our medical records to identify doctors who are not 100% conformed to the conventional medical model of Big Pharma and will target them for removal from the system.
The Cancer Moonshot will set up the greatest human database anyone has yet imagined.
It will be set up in the name of scientific research, health promotion, and disease treatment, but it has the potential to go far astray from its lofty goals.
The bottom line in the plan to establish an interoperable electronic health ecosystem is that it will threaten our right to keep our health information private and our right to exclude ourselves from various mandated health protocols.
Of course, the government says that they will put in place all kinds of safeguards to protect us, but as with every other government system I have seen, safeguards can be broken one after another, and the safeguards of today can be repealed in the future on the basis of a “need to know” for the “greater good” of society.
Developing Approved Cures and Technologies in the Right Way and for the Right Reason – No Tolerance for Alternative Cancer Therapies
The exact quote from the Cancer Moonshot Report is:
“Companies and entrepreneurs developing cures and technologies the right way for the right reason.”
This is an obvious slam against alternative medical approaches that are already being used to cure cancer. It implies that there are despicable companies and entrepreneurs developing cures and technologies in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.
The truth is that it is these entrepreneurs, scientists, and forward thinking physicians who have placed compassion for human misery and suffering above income and profits. They have set aside the desire to play in the big game along with Big Pharma, the CDC, the FDA, insurance companies, cancer centers, and the vast majority of conventional healthcare providers.
Those who seek to develop and use alternative solutions to cure cancer are actually the ones who are doing “the right thing for the right reasons,” but because of their threat to the conventional cancer treatment system, they are treated as outlaws and are accused of being greedy and selfish predators who are out to take advantage of people with cancer.
The Cancer Moonshot does not make any mention of the important work of alternative medicine, and makes off like it doesn’t exist. Their historical emphasis on treating cancer with therapies that cut, poison, and burn is unchanged since the days of Richard Nixon. They are, however, now adding vaccination and immunotherapy to the mix to give us greater “hope.”
Their new emphasis on cancer vaccines and genetic therapies is being dangled out in front of us like a carrot before a stubborn donkey. They are placing visions of cancer vaccines and human genetic modification on the horizon to entice us to keep on giving money and to keep on being patient while they work to find a cure.
They continue to tweak their cut, poison, and burn strategies with the hope that someday they will cure cancer, even though these therapies rarely if ever truly cure cancer, and some can actually cause cancer later in life. The conventional cancer treatment system does this while criticizing and condemning all the low-cost and highly effective natural cancer treatments that are already curing cancer right now.
Please see these links for additional information:
Instead of opening the door to research on highly effective but unpatentable cancer cures, the Moonshot report is encouraging government agencies to help Big Pharma by opening the door to rapid approval of multi-drug treatments for cancer. It even recommends loosening the requirements for experimental control groups when doing research to make drug approval move faster.
Conclusion: Nothing New, Just More Money for Big Pharma Profits
I am sorry to say that this entire report and the whole Moonshot plan is little more than the same old death by cancer treatment that allopathic medicine and Big Pharma have been using for the past 45 years. I believe the noble and grand sounding words of the report are designed to brainwash Americans. The report calls us to keep on pumping vast amounts of dollars into cancer research while failing to ask the most obvious question.
The question that should have been on the minds of the Cancer Moonshot Task Force is:
“What did we do to ourselves to create this cancer epidemic?”
Instead the report is asking us to retain our position as helpless victims of an unknown monster, which can only be killed through billions and trillions of new research dollars.
If the approach that we have been using to find a cure for cancer hasn’t worked in the past 45 years, then why should we expect that if we do more of the same thing during the next 5 years we will reap a better result? Wishful thinking will not solve the cancer problem. Working harder and faster in the same ways will not produce a cure.
If we want to find a cure for cancer, then the entire cancer system has to get out of the box and start using the low cost, often low tech, unpatentable solutions that actually cure cancer.
However, this will not happen, because the system is too big to change. It demands total compliance and when it does not receive what it wants, then it attacks and destroys all viable alternatives.
I want to conclude this analysis of the Cancer Moonshot Report with a few insightful comments from Dr. Mahin Khatami, Ph.D. Her comments were published in the December issue of the journal, Clinical and Translational Medicine. She is a retired professor and a former program director at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). As a former insider, she is stepping forward to set the record straight regarding the truth of HPV vaccines and the Cancer Moonshot Task Force.
Mahin Khatami was born in Tehran, Iran, and received her Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from the University of Pennsylvania (UPA, 1980). Her postdoctoral trainings were in physiology at the University of Virginia, and protein chemistry (proteomics) at the Fox Chase Cancer Institute and UPA. Her first language is not English. Please do not downgrade or ignore this message because of her non-standard English grammar or her unusual sentence structure.
Dr. Khatami stated:
On September 7, 2016, NCI presented a document “Cancer Moonshot’s Blue Ribbon Panel” to National Cancer Advisory Board. It identified 10 priorities for cancer research including HPV vaccination. The document rehashes the same fuzzy approaches that have been used in the last six decades for cancer research and therapy or vaccines with different spins. The document reminds us of the tactics that were used in 1970s by CDC director for urgently seeking extra fund for swine flu vaccination. …
The hidden short- and long-term agenda behind making HPV or meningitis vaccination as priority projects seem the availability of funds through Obamacare insurance and Moonshot Initiative. There should be no surprise that the cost of individual insurance keeps going up. Sixty-nine cancer centers urged HPV vaccination and thus-far, 80 million doses of HPV vaccines ($200–260/dose) consumed by healthy public.
It is painful to project that the sick status of ‘baby boomers,’ created half a century ago could be repeated, if not already started, by vaccinating the public with HPV or other vaccines (e.g., meningitis, shingles, flu), whether or not vaccines are contaminated with live viruses. Such fraud approaches could present grave health consequences for future generation (s), if the policy makers, professionals and public do not reflect on the fact that ‘intellectuals’ in health system who were responsible for improving public health are destroying it. 
You can read Dr. Khatami’s complete analysis here:
 Cancer Moonshot Task Force Report, Final VP Executive Report 1016161, Report to the President from the Vice President, October 17, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final-vp-executive-report-1016161.pdf
 Liu XC, Bell CA, Simmonds KA, Svenson LW, Russell ML; “Adverse events following HPV vaccination, Alberta 2006-2014,” Vaccine, 4/4/2016, PMID 26921782. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26921782
 Cancer Moonshot Task Force Report, Final VP Executive Report 1016161, Report to the President from the Vice President, October 17, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final-vp-executive-report-1016161.pdf
 “Is There Objective Evidence that the Current HPV Vaccination Programs are not Justified?” Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, 4th International Symposium on Vaccines, Leipzig, Germany. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr1knRaRCc or see Health Impact News, 10/18/2016. http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/is-there-objective-science-to-justify-hpv-vaccine-programs/
 “Dr. Humphries Examines Data on Gardasil Vaccine From Merck’s Own Package Inserts,” Health Impact News, 12/12/2016. http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/dr-humphries-examines-data-on-gardasil-vaccine-from-mercks-own-package-inserts/ or Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Discusses Gardasil on Vaxxed TV, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkyjgY70yPA
 Nathan D. Pennock, Justin D. Kedl, and Ross M. Kedl: “T Cell Vaccinology: Beyond the Reflection of Infectious Responses,” Trends in Immunology, March 2016, PMID 26830540
 “Health IT Standards and Health Information Interoperability,” Policy Researchers & Implementers, HealthIT.gov, Retrieved 11/4/2016. https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/interoperability
 “Governance Framework for Trusted Electronic Health Information Exchange,” The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, May 2013. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/GovernanceFrameworkTrustedEHIE_Final.pdf
 “HPV Vaccine Scam: NIH Scientist Exposes Corruption in Cancer and Vaccine Industries,” Dr. Mahin Khatami, PhD, Health Impact News, 12/07/2016. http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/hpv-vaccine-scam-nih-scientist-exposes-corruption-in-cancer-and-vaccine-industries/ and in Khatami, M.; “Safety Concerns and Hidden Agenda Behind HPV Vaccines: Another Generation of Drug-Dependent Society?” Clin Trans Med (2016) 5: 46. doi:10.1186/s40169-016-0126-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40169-016-0126-1