The logical bottom line of the series is this: there is a conspiracy to hide "natural" cancer cures, even though the cures are safer and more effective, because medical science cannot make money from natural cures. It's a tempting theory, but if you dissect it logically, it starts to fall apart.
Proponents of natural cures claim that Mother Nature is always better for curing what ailsyou. I get this; I really do. When managing my various health woes, I always try the natural stuff before I go to the pharmaceuticals, provided there's actual evidence that the natural stuff can work. But the notion that the more natural option is always safer is pure fallacy. The Plague is all natural, and it killed half of Europe. Ebola's natural. You know what else is natural? Cancer. Cancer has been around as long as people have, and although prescription medications are responsible for 1% of cancer cases, the biggest offender by far is all natural, fresh from the farm tobacco. Sunlight causes cancer, genetic predispositions cause cancer, viruses cause cancer, and all of these things are all natural. So it is simply not logical to conclude that natural is better.
I wrote a post some years ago about a doctor named Linus Pauling who thought he'd found the cure to cancer in vitamin C. The research was promising, but didn't stand up to scientific rigor. In The Truth About Cancer, Pauling's disciples claim that the research was covered up because Big Pharma couldn't profit off of it. But Big Pharma does profit from vitamins, and not just because most of the big drug companies also have vitamin brands (like, Wyeth, who make Centrum, for example).
Take retinol. Retinol is a form of vitamin A that the body makes naturally, but when synthesized in a lab and delivered in large doses, it has a number of therapeutic effects. Like treating cancer. Endo Pharmaceuticals makes Nascobol, a form of vitamin B that treats anemia, and tons of drug companies make vitamin D supplements for stuff like rickets. Big Pharma can, and does, make money from vitamins and such.
The fact is that this David and Goliath narrative that The Truth About Cancer sells is nonsense. The cancer industry may be worth billions, but so is the natural supplement industry. And they don't have the pesky overhead of having to prove their products work. Thanks to an incredibly powerful lobby, not only do supplement and natural remedy manufacturers not have to prove to the FDA that their products work, they don't even always have to prove that their products don't kill people.
The makers of The Truth About Cancer claim that oncologists are motivated by greed, that they get kickbacks for prescribing their death drugs. But ironically, the gurus featured in the documentary series are very rich men who almost certainly make a hell of a lot more money than the $300,000 an oncologist makes every year. Mike "Health Ranger" Adams makes probably millions plugging thoroughly disproved disease cures (like homeopathy for freaking Ebola), accusing the FBI of conducting mass killings, and claiming that the government is planning gunpoint quarantines of the un-vaccinated (yes literally).
Another expert featured in the documentary series is Joe Mercola who makes millions a year selling supplements, despite his website, Mercola.com, having an F rating from the BBB. Among the products for sale on his site: a $10,000 contraption that vibrates to absolutely not give you a total body workout, $300 blankets that are absolutely not "naturally thermoregulated," and a god-damn-will-straight-up-kill-you-dead tanning bed.
As for host Ty Bollinger? I tried to find out his net worth and I simply couldn't. His website makes it seem as if proceeds from his books and videos go to cancer charities, but TTAC LLC, the company that owns the site, is for-profit. They do, according to their own press, donate to some charities, but none, as far as I can tell, are tracked by any charity rating site or are registered with the BBB. I couldn't find financial information about these charities - some don't even have websites. And I'm out of my depth. I don't know how to investigate businesses or follow money trails, but it is deeply suspicious that I shouldn't have to. In a world where I can find out the net worth of any major business or charity's CEO with a simple Google search, how come I can't find anything on this guy?
Oncologists on the other hand? Like I said, they make about $300,000 a year, which is a lot of money, but doesn't even crack the top ten highest paid medical specialties. Yes, there are horrible, greedy people in every profession, but I have an extremely hard time imagining why a horrible, greedy person would choose to specialize in oncology. Not when specialties like plastic surgery and dermatology make a hell of a lot more and are a hell of a lot less depressing.
The Truth About Cancer accuses doctors of being in the business of death - of letting patients die for fun and profit. But the people propagating that message are profiting a hell of a lot more. And while Ty Bollinger and the "experts" he interviews have little, if any real education, oncologists go to school for the better part of a decade, and keep on going to classes and conferences and reading literature to keep up on the latest developments. They took an oath to dedicate their lives to the care of others, and they spend their every day surrounded by the sick and dying. I'm not saying they're all saints, but I am saying that they aren't the ones looking like the villains here.