This info excerpted from a video of a Richard Schulze seminar.
In the late 70's, the GAO was commissioned by the U.S. Congress to do a study on the efficacy of chemotherapy in treating breast cancer. For those who don't know, the GAO - Government Accounting Office, is an arm of the U.S.G. invented by the U.S.G. for the purpose of reporting statistics on whatever it might be that the U.S.G. is want to have some statistics on. As such, it is not unusual for the GAO to be sent off to study seemingly strange situations no matter how relevant or odd those situations appear to be. Schulze gave the example: if the U.S.G. would like to know, statistically, if doorknobs are generally placed at a proper height (like, do people often bang into them and hurt their hips, or are doorknobs generally installed at a safe height), the GAO is commissioned to go off and study doorknob height and subsequently report whatever statistics they gathered on such. In this instance, they were sent off to statistically study Chemotherapy as a treatment for breast cancer.
We often hear and see the term "an arm of the U.S.G.", so much so that it should cause a thinking person to wonder - just how many arms does the U.S.G. have?; think genetically altered octopus... turbo-charged, on steroids, and super sized for good measure and this will at least get a person an idea for how gangly and sprawling the arms of U.S.G. have become.
The GAO conducted a 10 year study that produced a report in 1989. The original title of this report, which itself spoke to the conclusion it drew, was "Breast Cancer Patients Have Yet To Realize Benefits From Chemotherapy". Before the report went to publicaction, various other arms of the collective U.S.G. came down hard on the GAO due to the findings they were about to publish. The collective U.S.G. is often characterized as a vast network of crime & corruption so finely compartmentalized that it often seems that it's left hand figuratively does not know what it's right hand is doing. In this instance, it is more like the left hand dictating what the right hand must do, or else! Among these arms of interest coming down the hardest upon the GAO were the AMA and DPHS. They did not want the GAO to release this report in it's original form, nor did they want whatever report was subsequently released to bear the original title. This was said to be the first time in it's history that the GAO was prohibited from releasing a report that it had been previously commissioned to produce. The new title given to the altered version of this report was "Breast Cancer Patient Survival". Although the report as it originally existed was censored from release to the public, the GAO was able to sort of sneak in under the radar 1) some of the letters they had received from various government agencies who had been the ones leaning on them to not publish the report in it's original form; 2) the statement made in the published report's conclusion.
Conclusion: How is it possible; that is, what would explain our consistent finding that there is no observable improvement in breast cancer patient survival even though the use of chemotherapy has increased considerably in the last 10 years?
At least at one time, this kind of report was available to anyone in the public who requested it. That was generally during a time when the collective U.S.G. still functioned somewhat loosely within the guidelines of an organization that at least outwardly was going through the motions of portraying itself as a legitimate organization. Who knows? By what passes for today's standards, a person may still be able to get this report. For those interested, you can try writing to the GAO and requesting a copy of this report. Request the report Feburay 1989 Report (subsequently entitled) " Breast Cancer Patient Survival" by writing to:
United States General Accounting Office
Washington D.C. , 20548
The circumstances surrounding this GAO report should help disabuse anyone who has the notion of doubting the extent of corruption and absolute power of institutionalized entities such as the AMA and big Pharma. The conclusion of this report should cause a thinking person to ask other relevant questions, such as: If this is the kind of results that chemotherapy causes with breast cancer, is it likely it causes similar results for the various other cancers for which it is routinely brought to bear?; given that the report found no credible evidence of benefits of chemotherapy used for breast cancer patients, would it not be a good idea to commssion a similar study to determine how much damage chemotherapy may be causing cancer patients - breast and otherwise, that it is administered to?