HOW Scientific are Orthodox Cancer Treatments?
6th April 2007 by Arrow Durfee Posted in Uncategorized
This article explains the statistical nightmare and the slant created to make the outcome for conventional cancer therapy look much better that it really is. This is an important read if you are considering chemo, radiation or surgery……………………Arrow
View full article here: whale.to/a/last.html
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 11, Number 4 (June-July 2004)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com by Walter Last © 2004
Chemotherapy: Medical Russian Roulette
The Full Treatment
A Conspiracy of Silence
The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals
The Way Forward
Research studies and unbiased statistical analysis show that there is no scientific basis for orthodox cancer treatments like radical surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy and that these treatments often do more harm than good.
The medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that I underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer I faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start immediately on a scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority.
How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies for simple health problems, but for something as serious as cancer you may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer treatment.
In this article I have assembled some little-known facts about the science behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success—expressed as a five-year survival rate—is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is basically unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.
In support of my position, I offer the following key statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications.
“Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left untouched [author's emphasis].”
In other words, early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that improves the survival statistics. “Also, it does not matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same.”1 This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances, otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.
Researchers have said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure.2 Furthermore, there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this, they would most likely refuse surgery.3
In 1993, the editor of the Lancet pointed out that, despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remained unchanged. He acknowledged that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words, not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time, he rejected the view of those who believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. He asked, “Would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?” Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is “Breast cancer: have we lost our way?”4
Basically, all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, MD, a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increa|e the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to accelerating the spread of cancer by stimulating the formation of metastases in other parts of the body.5
After 23 years, there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had [prostate cancer] surgery and the controls who did not…
An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast cancer live longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer.6 This conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical inter vention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer.7 Disturbance of a tumour causes a greatly increased number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is the metastases that kill, while primary tumours in general, and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless. These findings have been con firmed by recent research which shows that surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end.8
This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first randomised clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years, there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and the controls who did not have surgery, but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or incontinence.9
The late H. B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading US can cer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society in 1969 that no study has proved that early intervention improves the chances of sur vival. On the contrary, his studies proved conclusively that untreated can cer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of Me than treat ed ones.10 Needless to say, he was not invited again
An epidemiological study confirmed the questionable value of conventional therapy by concluding that “medical interventions for cancer have had a negligible or no effect on survival”.” Even the conservative New England Journal of Medicine had an article with the headline, “Cancer Undefeated”.12
Common ways to make medical statistics look more favourable are as follows. Patients who die during prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy are not counted in the statistics because they did not receive the full treatment. In the control group, everyone who dies is counted.
Furthermore, success commonly is judged by the percentage of shrinking tumours, regardless of patient survival; but if the rate or length of survival is measured, then it is usually only in terms of dying from the treated disease. It is not normally shown how many of the patients die due to the treatment itself.
The current trend is to pick up pre-cancerous conditions very early and treat them as cancer. While this statistically increases the number of people with cancer, it also artificially prolongs survival times and lowers death rates, thereby making medical treatments appear to be more successful. However, there may also be a genuine component of improved survival, as increasing numbers of cancer patients opt for additional natural therapies.
An investigation of the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that the death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was 200% higher than would normally be expected.
Two years after diagnosis and treatment, this excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause for the excess death rate was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means that, instead of dying several years later from cancer, these patients died from the effects of the treatment and helped greatly improve the cancer statistics because they did not strictly die of cancer.13 This misleading reporting of cancer deaths has led to demands for more honest statistics.”
After an analysis of several large mammogram-screening studies found that mammography leads to more aggressive treatment with no survival benefits, even the editor of the Lancet had to admit that there is no reliable evidence from large randomised trials to support mammography screening programs.15 The significance of this state ment goes far beyond the use of mammograms.
It is openly acknowledged by the proponents of conventional medicine that they have no effective way of helping patients with advanced cancer. Until now, the catchcry has always been “Detect it early, then it can be cured”. These mammogram evaluation studies demonstrate that it does not matter when cancer is detected; the conventional methods are useless, as is the whole multibillion-dollar cancer industry (my conclusion).
A 13-year Canadian study involving 40,000 women compared physical breast examinations with examinations plus mammograms. The mammogram-plus-examination group had many more lumpectomies and surgeries, with a death rate of 107 compared with 105 deaths in the physical examination group.16
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a common, non-invasive form of breast tumour. Most cases of DCIS are detected through the use of mammography. In younger women, 92% of all cancers detected by mammography are of this type. Nevertheless, on average, 44%—and in some areas 60%—of these are treated by mastectomy. As most of these tumours are harmless, this needless treatment makes survival statistics appear to be better than they actually are.17
While conventional diagnosis is invasive and may help to spread the cancer, a kind of electrodermal screening—called the Biofield test—developed by a team from eight European hospitals and universities, was reported in the Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in diagnosing malignancy in breast tumours.18
A large meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that after two years there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in addition to surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The Lancet article19 stated that the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after surgery, but it is a shame that the facts do not agree with this theory.
Chemotherapy: Medical Russian Roulette
Chemotherapy for children with leukaemia and Hodgkin’s disease is the proud showpiece of the arguably only apparent success of orthodox cancer therapy. Now a long-term follow-up study shows that such children develop 18 times more secondary malignant tumours later in life. Even worse, girls face a 75 times (7,500%) higher risk of breast cancer by the time they are forty.20 A main problem appears to be the development of deep or systemic Candida albicans infections shortly after commencement of chemotherapy.21 If these infections are not appropriately treated, then relapses or future health problems are likely to occur.