Are Cancer Cures Being Suppressed To Control Population?

Revelations by the late Dr. Richard L. Day in 1969 may have been shocking at the time, but not so much now as they have started coming true.

Dr Day was an eminent physician, a professor of pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan and Medical Director of the ‘Planned Parenthood’ organisation.

He was also described as an ‘insider of the Order’ referring to the ‘Order of the Barbarians’ (as those involved in an elite group committed to the ‘New World Order’ were known as at the time), which are now referred to as the globalist elite.

During a closed lecture to other doctors in 1969 Dr. Day said the cure for cancer was on file at the Rockefeller Institute.

His audience were shocked when he told them:  “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released.”

The Dr Richard Day Blog reports:

Dr Dunegan recalls what Dr Day said very clearly, because he found it unbelievable (as did the other attendees) that an institute who could effectively treat one of the most destructive diseases known to humanity would withhold that knowledge.

Dr Day continued “But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.”

He then went on to explain that treatment would be geared more towards easing some of the symptoms and making the sufferer comfortable rather than a cure.

Although the Rockefeller Institute have taken precautions to hide the information within the institute, Dr Day said that one day it may come to light if independent researchers get close to developing the same technology and cure. But for the time being letting people die of cancer was a good thing because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.

As with the attendees at the meeting, any normal thinking person may disbelieve that an organisation which purports to research cures and new medical treatments would withhold this vital information. But as we have seen many times before, where there is power and money anything can happen, especially when the supporters of eugenics are involved.

So let’s take a look at the Rockefeller Institute.

The Rockefeller Institute (for Medical Research) changed its name to The Rockefeller University in 1965.

The institute was founded in 1901 by John D. Rockefeller, an American business magnate who was one of six children born to con artist/travelling salesman, William Avery “Bill” Rockefeller, and housewife Eliza Davison in Richford, New York in 1839.

Rockefeller made his fortune in the oil and petroleum industries through Standard Oil, eventually developing them to hold significant shares of the petroleum and oil markets in the U.S. until antitrust laws curtained their significant holdings.

At the time of his death in 1937 Rockefeller’s wealth made him the wealthiest person in recent history, far surpassing the fortune of Bill Gates.

The institute was the first biomedical institute in the United States and initially concentrated on biomedical engineering. It became the first institute for clinical research in the U.S. when it opened The Rockefeller Hospital on the campus in 1910.

Some of the scientific breakthroughs attributed to the institute are:

blood groups and methods of preserving whole blood,
invention of formula diets to precisely control the balance of nutrients in food,
methadone maintenance therapy for people addicted to heroin,
drug combinations that offered the first life-extending treatments for HIV infection and AIDS,
the autoimmune nature of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, and
the first evidence that humans have natural immunity to tumours.
The institute moved into the area of education in 1955 to expand its interests. It granted its first honours degree in 1959, and became the Rockefeller University in 1965, with many students since going on to gain influential positions in other universities, industry, and other fields.

Since the institution’s founding in 1901, 24 Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the university. Of these, two are Rockefeller graduates and five laureates are current members of the Rockefeller faculty.

At the time of writing, David Rockefeller (the oldest living member of the family at 99 years of age) is Honorary Chair of the University. After graduating from the University of Chicago in 1940, and a brief time as secretary, he joined the military at the outbreak of World War 2.

When he left at the end of the war, he joined his uncle’s company, Chase National Bank (primarily a wholesale bank), which is closely associated with the oil industry, especially what was to become Exxon Mobil.

In 1955 the bank moved more into retail banking, changing its name to Chase Manhattan Bank, which is now known as JPMorgan Chase. By 1969 Rockefeller had become chairman of the bank and continued until his retirement in 1981.

Chase Bank has been involved in many controversies in its various guises over the years, including the purchase of Nazi Germany’s Reich Marks and releasing funds to Nazi Germany during World War 2, and refusing to release funds belonging to Jews in occupied France. In more recent times, JPMorgan has been involved in the Enron scandal, guilty of speculative trading, and numerous other. It has been referred to as the ’most controversial bank’ by Forbes.

In 1973, Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission together with Zbigniew Brzezinski, as an independent body bringing prominent political and business figures together with the publicised aim of promoting political and economic dialogue across the world at a time of ;considerable friction; among governments. The Commission is divided into three regional divisions, European, North American, and Asia Pacific.

The Commission has received considerable criticism since its inception. Most notably claims that the Commission is pivotal (in league with other organisations) in promoting and plotting to instil a world government system as part of a global push by influential organisations (such as major world financiers) towards a New World Order – rule by a secret elite.

The Trilateral Commission also has very close ties with the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the oldest and most influential think tanks in the USA. There is also some crossover between the memberships of the two organisations. The Council on Foreign Relations’ David Rockefeller Studies Program’ is the hub of the think tank and employs 70 full-time ‘scholars’ and ‘practitioners’ who use their expertise and knowledge in covering issues affecting ‘today’s global agenda’.

As with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations has been criticised for similar reasons – supporting globalism.

Both organisations have close ties to major corporations and many members are also senior executives. This has led to speculation that both organisations only represent the interests of large financial organisations and major global business, rather than their stated purposes.

It is important that we understand the relationship between the Rockefeller family and major financial and commercial interests, as well as their very close relationship with the world of politics. The Rockefeller University’s purpose could be to ensure ‘academics’ are placed in key positions within the global scientific community who are sympathetic to, and will support, the motives of both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. These ‘academics’ and key business people could work together to present what seems to be a viable solution to world problems, but with the underlying intention of serving their own interests.


Knowledge of cancer is speculated to go back as far as ancient Egyptian medical practice around 2500 B.C.

In more modern times, during the Renaissance, beginning in the 15th century, scientists developed greater understanding of the human body. Scientists like Galileo and Newton began to use the scientific method, which later was used to study disease. Autopsies, done by Harvey (1628), led to an understanding of the circulation of blood through the heart and body that had until then been a mystery.

In 1761, Giovanni Morgagni of Padua was the first to do something which has become routine today – he did autopsies to relate the patient’s illness to pathologic findings after death. This laid the foundation for scientific oncology, the study of cancer.

The famous Scottish surgeon John Hunter (1728-1793) suggested that some cancers might be cured by surgery and described how the surgeon might decide which cancers to operate on. If the tumour had not invaded nearby tissue and was “moveable,” he said, “There is no impropriety in removing it.”

A century later the development of anaesthesia allowed surgery to flourish and classic cancer operations such as the radical mastectomy were developed.

The 19th century saw the birth of scientific oncology with use of the modern microscope in studying diseased tissues. Rudolf Virchow, often called the founder of cellular pathology, provided the scientific basis for the modern pathologic study of cancer. As Morgagni had linked autopsy findings seen with the unaided eye with the clinical course of illness, so Virchow correlated microscopic pathology to illness.

This method not only allowed a better understanding of the damage cancer had done, but also aided the development of cancer surgery. Body tissues removed by the surgeon could now be examined and a precise diagnosis could be made. The pathologist could also tell the surgeon whether the operation had completely removed the cancer.

Today, cancer treatments are still quite primitive, often relying on surgery to remove cancerous tissue in the hope that it has not already spread to other tissue. If it has, then this may result in further surgery, and so on.

Other treatments include radiotherapy usually using x-rays which, were discovered in 1895. In the region of 40% of people with cancer receive radiotherapy. As well as destroying the DNA of cancerous cells, the therapy also causes severe damage to healthy tissue. The theory is that normal tissues are more able to repair themselves than cancerous cells.

Chemotherapy uses a single cytotoxic drug or cocktail of drugs which are poisonous to cells. The aim is to kill off the cancer cells, but this also has the effect of killing healthy cells. One of the most common side effects is hair loss.

Despite cancer being known to more modern medical science for over 250 years, and the billions upon billions spent on research, there is no effective cure, and treatments still rely on old and highly damaging methods and a lot of hope. New and effective treatments seem to have made very little progress in the past century or so, and primarily involve tinkering with existing treatments.

The reality is that around 50% of people diagnosed with cancer will die from the disease. In the United States the death rate from cancer has only been reduced by about 16% over a 20 year period – not a glowing statistic by any means. There has been less reduction in death from the disease in the UK.

Once of the biggest cancer charities in the UK is Cancer Research UK (registered charity 1089464) with a generated income for the last financial statement (2013-2014) of £537 million.

A charity which provides support to cancer patients is MacMillan Cancer Support (registered charity number 261017) with a generated income for the same period of £156 million.

In the United States, the American Cancer Society generated an income of $925 million according to the last available accounts to November 2013.

In addition to major charities, there are a number of national organisations in many countries, and in regions such as Europe, which also generate significant revenue from public and commercial sources. Cancer is very big business.

Drug companies are making huge profits from sales of expensive targeted drug therapies. Sales of Xalkori (lung cancer) and Zelboraf (melanoma) account for around 46% of the estimated whopping $100 billion in cancer drug sales worldwide.

Rockefeller ‘cure’?

It is difficult to get information concerning a possible cure direct from Rockefeller University, which is understandable if Dr Day’s statement in correct – and there is no reason for it not to be.

The university is involved in cancer research through its Anderson Center for Cancer Research, which was established to encourage and support collaborations and approaches in developing treatment and researching cures. Cancer has been researched at the Rockefeller University (when it was an institute) since around 1911, and several milestones in cancer research have been attributed to Rockefeller scientists.

Since cancer has been researched in the relatively modern age, there have been many claims of ‘treatments’ said to cure cancer, and many claims that cures are being supressed by large drug companies and other organisations (such as the Rockefeller Institute/University).

The claims have prompted many countries (including the U.S. and U.K.) to introduce legislation specifically design to prevent claims of treatments which alleged to cure cancer which have not originated from standard scientific practices.

In one way the legislation can be seen as controlling claims made by manipulators and charlatans to protect vulnerable people, and on the other it can be seen as supressing any potential cure which does not originate from the standard medical practice and research.

Unfortunately, there are the more unscrupulous in society who will take advantage of people and promote ‘therapies’ or ‘remedies’ which will have little or no effect – with some causing health problems. The largely unregulated diet/slimming industry is a good example, where products have been sold based on dubious claims or references at an inflated price – effectively preying on the vulnerability of others.

On the other hand, a claim that something has the potential to cure cancer relies on the scientific community seeing initial credibility in the claim and conducting further research within established scientific testing models. The chances of something being researched by the scientific community are slim unless the source of the claim is already established within that community and it falls within the remit of their current research – which is often influenced by their financiers who may have other interests. These interests are often commercial, and unless there is potential profit in a claimed cure it is highly unlikely that any research will receive funding.

This effectively reduces the chances of anything which may be freely available to the population from being researched.

Again, we are moving into the corridors of power where profit dictates what will and will not be permitted at each stage of the process.

As with many other major scientific discoveries (especially in health science) it is ‘maverick’ scientists who bring about real change.

Casting aside the dogma and ‘rules’ imposed on them, the maverick scientist conducts real research and considers all possibilities while attempting to reach their goal.

A more recent example is that of UK researcher, Professor Gerry Potter.

In 2001, Potter hit the headlines with claims that he had discovered a drug that could rapidly kill cancer cells with no side effects. He claimed that the drug could almost eradicate cancerous cells within 24 hours and was 10,000 time more toxic to the cells than healthy ones (chemotherapy is at best only twice as toxic to cancerous cells as healthy ones). Potter made his discovery within two weeks of starting his research.

The drug, which could come in tablet form, only becomes toxic when it comes into contact with an enzyme found in cancer cells.

In laboratory tests the drug destroyed 95% of cancer cells with the enzyme, including those of breast, colon, stomach, and brain cancer. Tumours resistant to other forms of treatment were also destroyed.

Potter predicted that it could take as long as a decade before the drug became available on the market because of the testing process for new drugs. In addition to clinical trials lasting many years, investors are sought so that the trials and further research can continue.

The results of these trials may also result in the drug being approved for some areas of treatment and not others.

Even when clinical trials are completed, it can take considerable time before a drug becomes available to those who would benefit from it, with cost to health authorities being the main deciding factor. Commercialisation takes over.

The overly bureaucratic and dogmatic systems effectively inhibit effective treatments coming to market as each minor technicality is scrutinised by hordes of scientists and accountants.

This can place a potentially valuable treatment in limbo for many years.

As of today, access to effective cancer treatment is not available to every person who would potentially benefit from it, even though Potter’s discovery (which is one of many beneficial discoveries in the field of cancer research) was made in 2001.

The treatment of cancer is still based in very barbaric and ineffective treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, with a survival rate at best of 50% of cancer sufferers. Chopping people up and blasting them with highly damaging and toxic chemicals is still considered to be acceptable when other less destructive methods could be available right now.

Taking the overall picture into account, it is highly likely that effective cancer treatments have been supressed in the past. The reasons could be as simple as the lack of the scientific community of the period failing to take notice of new discoveries outside of their narrow perspectives, or the lack of financial interest in development. Rockefeller may be no different to many other organisations in this respect. Profit before doing what is best for the majority of the population.

Or maybe the lack of interest in curing the disease is part of a wider agenda to keep the earth’s population under control. To repeat what Dr Day said, “But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else.”

Courtesy of The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

  • itibi ra

    Why is there no mention of Royal Raymond Rife? He worked with the most respected medical researchers and doctors of his time (1920s to 1930s) and had begun researching his treatment using first cell cultures of specific disesses, then with lab mice and finally, with the emcouragemeng of reseadchers and doctors from such institutions as John Hopkins and UCLA, a medically supervised treatment clinic was opened for 18 patients with stage 4, inoperable and “incurable” cancers of various types. He treated all of them with a machine that emitted radio and light at specific frequencies, exposing each patient to one minute of this therapy per day. Within a month, all 18 patients were cancer free. His device also treated other diseases such as polio and TB. The major newspapers of the time ran headlines proclaiming “Ths End to All Disease” and a large banquet, greatly publicized, was held in Rife’s honor, with medical dignitaries from around the world attending. However, after a short time, the FDA and the AMA got involved and started to harass Rife. His lab equipment was stolen and destroyed. A mysterious fire burnt his lab down and Rife was taken to court for practcing medicine illegally. He was exonerated of all charges but his machines, his notes and his life’s work were lost. This cure happened in the 1920s to 1930s, and not only for cancer.

    It is ignorant and insulting for the author to not even mention Rife. The cure is (was) found, and neither involved drugs, surgery or any other voodoo from the allopathic and pharmaceutical industries.

    No wonder the world has become a hell hole when people who are brilliant and who care are crucified and cures stolen from humanity for greed and profit.

    • James Peters

      Where is the peer-reviewed evidence which proves this?

      • itibi ra

        You mean the “peer reviewed” literature reviewed by those same dogmatic, for-profit ideologues that destroyed Rife’s work to begin with? Are you inferring that a murderer should be in charge of the investigation of the murder he committed?

        Peer filtering is common in all areas of scientific enquiry and is the control gateway to maintain the status quo of knowledge that is permissible against what is not deemed permissible. In fact, it also happens every day in the mainstream media.

        • James Peters

          If Rife’s machine worked in the 30’s I find it strange he was never able to find anyone to take his claims seriously up until the 70’s and even then there was no credible evidence it did anything. Supposedly people are making Rife Machines. If that’s the case, all they need to do is complete a number of preclinical studies and either publish these in a peer-reviewed journal or put them on line for everyone to see. You can’t suppress something that you put on the internet. This would be a very easy thing to prove, and the fact that none of the manufacturers of modern Rife Machines has done this means they can’t possibly work.

          • itibi ra

            He was never able to find anyone to take his claims seriously??? Some of the most respected doctors and medical researchers of his time don’t count? Successful clinical trials of 18 stage 4 cancer patients healed completely by his device don’t count???! Public recognition by medical researchers of his achievements don’t count????!! According to whom? You?

            You are either wilfully ignorant, incapable of independent thinking or a shill for the medical industry. The information is available on the internet, including copies of the newspapers of that time, photos, names of doctors that helped Rife with his device’s testing, etc.

            As has been documented long ago, Rife was able to do what he did by designing and constructing, at first, a powerful microscope to be able to view the disease organisms in vivo. He was an optical designer and invented optical heterodyning in order to be able to view some of the specimens under the microscope, those that wouldn’t show up under ordinary illumination. From there, being able to observe live specimens, he then experimented with a number of ways to kill the organisms in a way that wouldn’t harm the patient. He finally succeeded with a device that used a combination of carefully modulated RF frequencies and light. It took him years to develop the technology and the techniques as well as record these precise frequencies which he then hardwired into his machine. These were the days when vacuum tubes were still relatively young, before computers. You really don’t have a clue about the amount of work, the level of skill and creativity that would be required to work across all these disparate fields of inquiry, do you?

            The destruction of his machines along with the destruction of his lab and most of his research notes and technical data, along with his attempted prosecution by the AMA, made attempts to recreate his machines decades later a near impossibility. Many fake Rife machines are out there today but they are NOT real Rife machines.

            You are truly ignorant and / or a shill in implying that since the fake machines don’t seem to work, ipso facto the real Rife machine never worked. And stating that “…all they need to do is complete a number of preclinical studies…” – with what? Rife’s original machines were deliberately destroyed by the AMA, and the fake Rife machines are not the same. Secondly, they already did SUCCESSFUL preclinical studies with doctors and medical researchers from prestgious medical schools such as John Hopkins and UCLA in the 1920s and 30s.

            You really are trying hard to avoid the real evidence. You just like to ignore facts, make logical fallacies and argue, it seems.

            And there you go again with your empty-headed mantra, “peer review”, “peer review”, “peer review”… very amusing.

    • Myra Ruiz


    • itibi ra

      I replied at length to the last James Peters comment to my responses, refuting his arguments, but “” deleted it, thus making it appear as though i was not able to refute his arguments or that i agree with him, which i do not. My response was lengthy and detailed and i will not waste any more time repeating myself only to have the moderator delete it again.I want to be clear: I did not say anything derogatory in that reply.

      This is the second time this site has deleted my comment without any apparent reason. Therefore, i will not visit this website anymore and i will suggest to my friends and associates to boycott this website as well. We (my friends and family) always appreciate true alternative, open-minded and open websites but evidently this is more of a disinformation site allowing only certain viewpoints . Reader beware.

      I am removing this site from my bookmarks and would suggest others to do the same. This site is extremely biased and sides with the status quo while masquerading as an alternative news site.

  • Katos

    It couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with the BILLIONS THEY make FROM chemo therapy each year, AND then the massive amount of drugs needed to Maintain THEM till they die?