March 2, 2019
ATLANTA–The Centers for Disease Control announced Wednesday the results of a decade-long “meta-study” of more than 75 years’ worth of medical and scientific cancer research, concluding that “the hypothesis best supported by extant research is that the soundest predictor of whether a patient will have developed cancer is whether the patient has developed cancer.” “The most striking finding of the study is not that cancer causes cancer,” explains Dr. Betty Rind of the CDC’s special task force, “but that cancer doesn’t always cause cancer. It’s a key factor–probably the key factor, but it’s not decisive.”
The study was the brainchild of former CDC Director Dr. Henry Swellman, who initiated the $26 billion effort during his short tenure. “I’ve given this quite some thought,” Swellman testified to a Senate subcommittee during his contentious three-month confirmation hearing, “and there are so many potential causes for cancer out there. There’s a simpler, more elegant possibility. What do all cancer patients have in common? That’s going to be the most likely cause, and I intend to find it. The data is there. Now it’s just a question of will.”
Swellman’s team quickly grew to more than 150 doctors, clinicians, and statisticians, who combed archives of peer-reviewed studies and their supporting data for clues to cancer’s elusive cause. The studies and their data were subjected to a series of sophisticated mathematical analyses, including proprietary ‘Monte Carlo simulations,’ multiple regressions, and a recursive set of ‘Hyde transformations.’ “We eventually reached a conclusion that was both surprising and obvious,” notes Dr. Rind, “a number of factors are correlated with the development of cancer, but the highest correlation is actually between the development of cancer and the development of cancer.”
The CDC’s report hypothesizes that the ‘strong yet imperfect’ correlation it found between cancer and the presence of cancer may be related to an esoteric prediction found in the developing field of quantum diagnostics. The so-called ‘uncertainty diagnosis’ suggests that certain medical conditions remain in a state of suspension or uncertainty until diagnosed. “I believe part of what we see in the CDC study is a corollary of diagnostic ‘superposition,'” explains Professor Rudolph Pilegram, a leading proponent of the theory. “Certain diseases are held in a state of seemingly contrary suspension until the moment of diagnosis. Pre-diagnosis, you may simultaneously have cancer and not have cancer. Diagnosis itself resolves the superposition. If you’re diagnosed with it, you have it, if not, you don’t. I believe the imperfect correlation in the CDC study is a side-effect of this phenomenon.”
Asked about the implications of the study, the CDC’s Dr. Rind notes that “the importance of a study like this will really only be seen in retrospect, in the way that it shapes future research. I think what this study tells us, pretty clearly and unequivocally, is that the best way to find effective treatments for cancer is to focus our research efforts on finding effective treatments for cancer.”