The Truth 365

2012, Health  -   31 Comments
Ratings: 7.64/10 from 33 users.

In less than ten years social media has taken the world by storm. We can now communicate with almost anyone from anywhere effortlessly and instantly and the ways we use social media are endless: to stay in touch, for entertainment, to express ourselves, or to satisfy our curiosity about a planet millions of miles from earth.

With your help, we plan to harness the power of social media to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children.

Our goal is to stop a killer, a silent killer that takes the lives of children day after day, 365 days a year. This is the bully or the monster that comes in the middle of the night and steals our kids.

Four years ago, Melinda faced this killer and survived but she was one of the lucky ones. Over 2,500 kids a year die at the hands of this killer called cancer, childhood cancer. What's shocking is that our country is doing very little to prevent these deaths and the public is unaware.

Every day, children are dying. Every day, children are being diagnosed and still nothing is being done about it and people don't know. We didn't know, we didn't have any idea that there was this many families out there, these many children and how terrible these diseases are. Once you do start to realize that, you know that something needs to be done.

Melinda too was unaware until this beast nearly took her live. She vowed that if she survived she would do everything in her power to help expose the truth, eradicate cancer and end the suffering for all children. That brings us to today and this film. She's here to fulfill this promise but she needs your help. We need your help. You have the power to give these kids something that they never had... a voice. They're young, innocent kids who need someone to stand up for them.

The truth is that US government spends billions of dollars a year on cancer research but very little goes directly to childhood cancer research. The government has millions and billions of dollars set aside for cancer research but so little of it is spent on children. It's very little, a fraction.

Right now, it's estimated that about four percent of the National Cancer Institute's budget is directed for childhood cancer research. Kids are dying because they lack treatment options. We cannot sit here and wait for the next 10 years. In 10 years more children will die. You could help stop this by exposing this hidden reality. If people really knew what was going on with little kids, maybe that funding would change.

At the end of this film, we will tell you exactly how you can stand up for these kids in a way that will make a big difference. It takes so little to take a stand and it means too much if thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million people take the stand.

More great documentaries

31 Comments / User Reviews

  1. DustUp

    Ignorance is bliss or [a no n] above profits from the conventional cancer system. The hospital doctors ARE the problem. They go to school and get brainwashed failing to question the big pharma supported schools of "medicine". How difficult is it, logically, to realize that adding toxic pharmaceuticals and radiation to the system weakens the immune system which is needed to fight cancer? Typically the immune system was unable to overcome the cancer cells in that body in the first place. Priority 1 and 1.1 is building up the immune system while stopping the cancer, or it could return. Further, if the cancer was caused by exposure to an external toxin or the toxic excrement of an internal microbe (the two major paths of cancer), then you are setting up the patient for a potential relapse of cancer or simply finishing them off faster like they did to my mother. For example mom didn't die of the deadly liver cancer (she didn't smoke or drink) she went to the hospital for, they killed her off by wiping out her kidneys with chemo. Clearly some manage to survive on certain chemos. A friend's wife who smokes managed to survive the typical breast cancer chemo and is still alive. I am guessing because they got it early. She had a tough time walking during the treatments since the chemo was so toxic.

    If you study medical research and alternatives, you will find that there are natural substances that have a MUCH higher kill rate of cancer cells than ANY chemo. Why aren't they used? This can only lead to the same conclusion as several of those above, its about the money... but also those at the top really don't want you to live all that long after they extract as much of your bank as they can. Population reduction is the goal of the elites, some of which are at the helm of big pharma. The American Medical Assn controlled by big pharma has a stranglehold over the docs since they will sue most docs who fail to go along with their "conventional" kill the cancer or the patient, whichever comes first, methods. They don't "seem" to bother a doc who really isn't curing that many patients nor the word of it going very far.

    Here is the 91 year old research that President Reagan used to save his life from 3 cancers at the same time while in office:
    "Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.”
    This researching German doctor Warburg also said 50 years ago: “Nobody today can say that one does not know what the prime cause of cancer is. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse for avoiding measures for prevention.”
    Reagan used an oxygen therapy, a therapy which was banned by the FDA about 10 years after its discovery. He used a banned therapy! Today some states have over ridden this ban to allow its use.

    Having watched them torture my mother, I would opt for one of the electronic methods found at, along with the nutritional / cleansing program by Dr. Gerson who was curing Cancer in the 1940s using nutritional methods and was poisoned twice for doing so, the last one killed him. Along with an Oxygen therapy and possibly a high potency cannabis extract ala Rick Simpson Oil. There is a docu about him which I saw on this website (thank you TDF) as well as further info on his own website. It has shown great tumor eliminating ability.

    Yep the shotgun approach. One ought to work. Eating Organic rather than the GMO crap which is most of the regular stuff for sale these days, and using a heavy metal scavenger such as oral chelation should help keep it away. You breathe in nano sized heavy metal most all the time now due to GeoEngineering. It is proven fact, I see it all the time overhead. For more info see Those who deny it like a couple people I know do so despite the evidence due to their emotional makeup of not believing govt would want to harm them. Silly and sad ignorance in the face of stated desired population reduction by the so called elites; carved in stone at the Georgia Guidestones.

  2. Petvet

    The death rate for childhood cancer might be "low", but, as the film pointed out, that statistic doesn't take into account children who die more than 5 years after diagnosis. It doesn't take into account kids who get secondary cancers, sometimes when they are still kids. 1 in 285 children will get cancer before the age of 20. How many of these are left with major disabilities, growth retardation, cognitive delays from radiation, heart failure and other organ failure? They go through years of treatment with nasty side effects, often making their quality of life poor for those years. These kids lose their childhood. They are forced to grow up fast. We need better treatments that don't have such toxic side effects. It is ridiculous that 96% of federal funding goes towards adult cancer while kids, who have the most to gain by successful treatment, only get 4%. To me, it is way more tragic to lose a child (average age of death from childhood cancer is 8) to cancer than it is to lose an older adult, who has lived the majority of his/her life. A child who dies of cancer loses his/her whole future. These kids should be enjoying at least another 50-70 years. And childhood cancer is on the rise.

    I'm sure people who say funds are better spent elsewhere would be singing a different tune if THEIR child had terminal cancer. Parents should NOT have to outlive their children.

  3. Eric Lawson

    What a tear jerk-er!! I preform for these kids at our local hospitals . It tears my heart out every time i do this. I gave up on God. This is something that should be funded at least as much as adult cancer.Really!!! This is criminal. I lost my mother to cancer she was 72 that was young to us kids. This just is not fair by any standards. Thank you for the video

  4. englishjakes

    it sucks but alot of people who have medical degrees have told me cancer mutates in a similar way to the common cold making nearly impossible to cure and most of them believe cancer will not be going away anytime soon

    1. mikeysbro

      well the good news is that we know what can reduce or eliminate the possibility of getting those cancers in the first place. First of all hundreds of clinical studies have been done with garlic(not to forget hundreds of other herbs) and cancer these studies are easy to find all over the net. pub med is one of many sites with thousands of studies available for people to research.
      In addition, nutritional clinical studies fill volumes of books now from all over the world. In these studies it clearly shows which foods cause cancer and which ones don't there are thousands of studies in clinical nutrition about food and cancer. One such site is nutritionfacts dot org and he puts up some great lectures such as the leading causes of death. This lecture is free and he has many thousands of clinical nutrition facts on his site. Many of which are on cancer...
      Thus there are thousands of scientific studies out there but don't go to most medical doctors or JAMA to find such knowledge...

  5. Saydi

    Cancer research is the biggest money making SHAM ever created, the U.S. government in collusion w the pharmaceutical industry has OUTLAWED EVERY NATURAL CURE FOR CANCER and there are quite a few. WATCH RUN FROM THE CURE, THE GERSON MIRACLE, CANCER THE FORBIDDEN CURES, there is also a Dr. using baking soda w excellent results, Andrew Saul Nutritionist has an excellent website-high dose vitamin therapy for a myriad or ailments. Stop listening to MAINSTREAM DR.S & MEDIA. And all of these people will be disparaged and accused of QUACKERY

    1. over the edge

      they are accused of quackery because they are quacks. they never seem to perform or finish clinical trials. they do not get peer reviewed and they do not wish to follow the rules set up to provide the best possible chances of success.

    2. Saydi

      Clinical trial would never be allowed for REAL CANCER CURES and people who are healed IS PROOF. They are shut down by the government to protect Big Pharm. Please don't reply back, hope you never get sick and need a real cure, as so many other desperate people do. And hope your family is all well, I am watching people in my community drop dead every day fr cancer.

  6. norlavine

    Yes, unfortunately, cancer treatment should be free for all, but, for too many people, it can also mean a huge source of revenue and a great lifestyle xx

  7. CarimboHanky

    i lost my stepfather to cancer just a couple months ago but as much as i feel sorry for this kids and cancer patients in general, i feel that giving money for "cancer research" is a waste of time...

    over the decades billions and billions have been given and spend on "research" and to this day the only thing the cancer industry have come up is with radiotherapy and chemotherapy... really?!

    radiotherapy a 100+years treatment and chemotherapy a 70+years treatment, nothing seem to improved... simply unbelievable!

    1. LoggerheadShrike

      There have been some advances, the survival rates are much better than they were 30 years ago. But I do get what you're saying. These little improvements seem rather weak, given the amount of time and the amount of money involved. Personally I think the funding drives are a bit of a scam ... where's that money go? Playtime for big pharma? Do they use it to research new drugs which they wanted to develop anyway and are only connected to cancer in some very tiny way? Then get the patents and make the public, which gave, pay through the nose to get the drugs they sponsored with their own money!

      I think we should start talking about nationalizing big pharma unless they start behaving and stop acting like a bunch of lowlife bandits.

    2. CarimboHanky


      if youre in the pharmaceutical business would you want people not to get sick?

      cancer is a multi-billion dollar business... why would you release a drug that can cure or drastically increase the survival rate of the patient... the more sick people the better. over time big pharma release more effective drugs but like i said before after so many decades and so many billions of dollars they should be more ahead of what we have today.

      people keep dying, while big pharma get richer... just last year 11 drug companies raked close to $85billions in net profit, most of that money come from the cancer treatments they sell.

    3. LoggerheadShrike

      I think you should re-read what I wrote ... you don't seem to have done so. Looks like you just skimmed, at best.

      There is no drug for pharma to worry about releasing because they haven't looked for one. Finding one would take the resources they have - the labs, the workers, the testing facilities. Some guy isn't going to find it. But lots of charlatans will claim they have because just as pharma rakes in the big bucks off cancer victims, so do the quacks and snake oil salesmen. They are two sides of the same coin.

    4. CarimboHanky

      AMEN to that mate!!!

  8. Glen

    Before you donate to ANY cancer fund/ Red cross etc raiser check it out online ..most like find it a scam and only 3c in the $ goes to research.

  9. solatle

    It is saddening to see we adults are literally killing our own children unwittingly. Childhood cancers begin way before children are conceived in a mother's womb. Health education at school, parental education, and prenatal care education are keys to childhood cancer prevention. More of public funding must go to finding out the causes of childhood cancers and preventing them, and to helping the children with cancer, who are the victims of a failed society and of adults' ignorance.

    1. pwndecaf

      Really? The parents are at fault? Please...before the children are conceived? Really?

    2. solatle

      Sorry, I did not mean to sound as if parents are at faults; rather, the ignorance is at fault. More specifically, I was referring to epigeneticism and environmental toxins. Thank you for the feedback.

    3. durike

      look up epigenetic information. it is relatively new. also i remember watching a document here on TDF, where an isolated group of people gave birth to defected children after they had bad harvest (famine)

    4. Gadea

      Yeah, it is.

      Great grandmother's diet,, will affect the
      grandchildren, that she will never meet.

    5. pwndecaf

      Well, we are all doomed. Gotta go sometime. Might as well blame mom, dad, grandma, grandpa...

      I didn't pass along my tail-waggers of death, so I'm good with it.

    6. LoggerheadShrike

      It isn't a matter of fault, it's just science. As soon as a child is conceived it's being bathed in whatever toxins exist in the parent's system and suffering from the same lack of nutrients as the parent.

      Probably part of the problem with researching childhood cancer is the fact that the solution is to address the environment in the womb, but then people have knee-jerk reactions about blame and throw a fit, halting funding and halting progress.

  10. Karen

    There are loads of alternative cures for cancer that also prevent disease rather than just do damage control. Giving money to cancer research doesn't help one bit, instead we should stop eating junk and start leading healthy lives, stop polluting the environment. I feel for these children I really do, but the parents are going about it the wrong way if they think the cancer industry are the one who are going to help them.

    1. Alex

      Agreed. Cancer research is big business. Any real proper cures are kept hush hush and all we have are treatments that make big bucks for the developers and suppliers. If cancer was cured, cancer charities and researchers would be buggered.

    2. a_no_n

      flawed logic!
      all of those people develop cancer too you know!

      The man who discovered a cure for cancer would be put up there with Newton, Einstein and aristotle, a legend for all eternity, a scientist earming 16=20k a year isn't going to turn his/her nose up at that!

    3. a_no_n

      there is not a single aternative cure anywhere in the world...If someone tells you they have an alternate cure, congratulations, you just met a scam artist!

  11. chris

    Lets rally up the troops for another gathering of the Internet warriors doing nothing more than posting a picture on Facebook and expecting cancer to disappear. If you want to talk about the truth of cancer, lets talk about how cancer is not a disease, it's an industry. Cancer will not go away because millions of people around the world rely on cancer for their livelihood. Doctors, researchers, cancer society workers, nurses and the drug companies. Billions of dollars in salaries and corporate profits would be removed from the economy over night if a cure for cancer was achieved. Until there is no dollar sign attached cancer it will never go away. We're seriously going to sit there and think we have the technology to clone sheep, but there have been almost no major breakthroughs in cancer in over 50 years since chemotherapy was started (1942)? Writing to congress won't do anything aside from some greasy smile on TV promoting some new awareness campaign for 6 months that sucks more money from the tax payors pockets and accomplishes nothing the big pharma and other cancer benefiting lobby groups send the White House their next big cheque for them to turn a blind eye to the issue again.

  12. Harry Nutzack

    in 2009, roughly 2.5 children per 100,000 population aged 5-14 died of cancer in the US. just under twice as many in the same age group died of accidental injury. a mortality rate of 25/1000 % is hardly a pandemic. i am well aware of how truly tragic it is to lose a kid for ANY reason, but people die, that's a harsh fact of reality. as emotionally charged a subject as it obviously is for those directly impacted by it, is it really statistically significant enough to become a "priority"? if the 2 leading causes of death between the ages of 5-14 (which account for almost half the total deaths for the age group) total up to 70/1000 % of that population, then the kids here have about the safest lives on the planet. perhaps funding should be concentrated where it will positively impact more significant numbers?

    1. avd420

      Why aren't there more rational folks like you around, Harry!

    2. Karen

      Thank you for enlightening us.

  13. Toematoe

    For some strange reason Kony 2012 comes to mind; perhaps the disguise of social media or maybe the threat of an individual so small, such as a 4% budget. Sad to say something like this can be exploited to fund some hidden agenda. With a 4% budget, any additional funding would have to be substantiated by multiple credible individuals, not a social media mayhem.