Failure of Standard Treatment

Irish Cancer Society doesn’t warn us about
the failure
of standard treatments to
prolong survival in most patients.

 

“More people live off cancer than die from it.” Dr. Deepak Chopra


What would optimal cancer treatment look like?

  • It would eliminate the cancer without seriously harming the patient – treatment should not be worse than the disease.
  • It would target Cancer Stem Cells to prevent metastasis (cancer spread).
  • It would address the root cause of the cancer.
  • It would educate patients on lifestyle changes to prevent recurrence.
  • It would greatly prolong survival time for most patients.

Conventional treatments do none of the above.

 

Irish Cancer Society website:
In Ireland, conventional cancer treatments are based on scientific research. Many of the treatments have been tested in clinical trials. This allows doctors to predict the response to treatment, side-effects and the general effect of treatment. Conventional treatments are tried and trusted methods, with a long history of use.

Firstly, statements such as “treatments based on scientific research”, “tested in clinical trials” and “tried and trusted methods” have no meaning as they tell us nothing about whether they prolong the lives of cancer patients. Actually, numerous studies show they don’t prolong life in most cases.

Secondly, if this information “allows doctors to predict the response to treatment, side-effects and the general effect of treatment”, why do they put patients through so much suffering when they know the dangers and limitations of these toxic treatments?

The reality is that standard treatment is not improving survival for most patients
Contrary to what we are told by the Irish Cancer Society, numerous studies show that conventional treatments do not extend survival for most cancer patients. All too often, they result in seemingly full recoveries followed by relapse.

Of those that manage to survive beyond five years, research shows that only a small number will live both long-term and in good health. The rest will develop other serious health conditions such as heart, kidney or liver disease, get another type of cancer, or their cancer will spread or come back.

Chemotherapy and other drugs don’t prolong life for most patients.

Ulrich Abel, PhD, of the University of Heidelberg, is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on chemotherapy.
In the 1990s, he conducted a study on the benefits of chemotherapy. He reviewed several thousand publications and sought the views of oncologists in over 350 clinics before publishing his results. Here’s what he found:
With few exceptions, there is no good scientific basis for the application of chemotherapy in symptom-free patients with advanced epithelial malignancy“.

In his book Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer , he stated:
There is no evidence for the majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease

Speaking in Stuttgart in 1990, he stated:
The success of most chemotherapies is appalling. There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer. Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80 percent of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.


This 2017 study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) concluded:
This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life.

This study entitled Lessons from a century of cancer chemotherapy, found:chemo drip
“… the results of over a half-century of clinical trials have shown that the therapeutic approach of combined/dose-dense chemotherapy has not been successful in achieving its primary purpose, which is the induction of long-term disease-free survival in the majority of patients with systemic disease”.

 

A 14-year study The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies published in Clinical Oncology in 2004 explored the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to five year survival in 250 000 adults with solid cancers from Australian and US randomised trials. It found:

Study Results:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

This study concluded:
The Quality of Life near Death in patients with end-stage cancer is not improved, and can be harmed by chemotherapy use near death…

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.”
Dr Albert Braverman MD, Professor of Oncology, State University of New York.


While chemotherapy is effective for a very small number of cancers (testicular cancer and childhood leukaemia), this study published in The Lancet in 2017 estimated that, on average, a survivor of childhood cancer will experience 11 non-fatal chronic health conditions including an average of 3 severe or life-threatening conditions.

This 2017 study shows that a review into more than 1,200 published articles found that

  • The average life expectancy of childhood cancer survivors is 30 per cent lower than the general population.
  • Childhood cancer survivors are up to six times more likely to develop a secondary cancer, compared with the general population.

In general, cancer survivors are also more likely to develop long term conditions, such as heart problems, lung scarring, secondary cancers and frailty. They will also get age-associated illnesses sooner than the general population, the analysis suggests.

The researchers say much of the illness and accelerated ageing is down to harsh treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which damage the body’s ability to fight back from illness and repair itself.

Some cancer drugs were also found to be associated with hearing loss, reduced thyroid gland activity, high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, muscular weakness, arthritis, kidney and liver diseases, chronic constipation, and infertility.

While ageing prematurely is a better alternative to dying prematurely, the use of effective non-toxic treatments would, obviously, be a far better approach.

 

chemo hoax meme

Proof that cancer patients’ increases in survival is not ‘because of better drugs’Proof that cancer patients’ increases in survival is not ‘because of better drugs’
A study published in 2018 in JAMA Oncology found that colorectal cancer patients who improve their diet and lifestyle survive longer with a 42 per cent reduced risk of death than those who do not make the changes. This is way beyond anything drugs have to offer…and with only positive side effects!

Hormone therapy

Hormone therapy can make prostate cancer worse, study find.

Scientists have discovered how prostate cancer can sometimes withstand and outwit a standard hormone therapy, causing the cancer to spread. Their findings also point to a simple blood test that may help doctors predict when this type of hormone therapy resistance will occur.
Continue reading
Source: Science Daily / University of Toronto

Radiation

This study done at UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center found radiation actually induces breast cancer cells to form more tumors. Plus, malignancy in radiation treated breast cells was likely to be 30 times more probable. Radiation actually promotes malignancy in cancer cells instead of killing them, and it allows cancers to grow back with even greater force.

Surgery

A study (The efficacy of surgical treatment of breast cancer.) found:
“The conclusion from the previous analysis, that surgery has not been shown to reduce mortality for any form of cancer, is therefore still valid”.

A study (The efficacy of surgical treatment of cancer – 20 years later) published in 2014 concluded:
Caution: No benefits can be expected to be achieved from using cancer surgery except in a few immediately life-threatening situations. Surgery appears to be based on an invalid paradigm of what cancer is. Cancer appears to be a systemic disease and therefore standard treatments need to be reassessed in this light.

Is there any research to show that these treatments can increase survival for trial participants? Yes, there is. However, the gains are mostly short-term and benefit only a tiny minority of patients. They cause horrible side-effects and/or premature death in large numbers of patients. Furthermore, studies have shown that the findings of most industry sponsored clinical trials are four times more likely to show favourable results – irrespective of the data. (Lexchin Bero BMJ 2003)

For example, in this commentary published in Nature, C. Glenn Begley, head of global cancer research at Amgen identified 53 “landmark” publications – papers in top medical journals, from reputable labs – for his team to reproduce. In 47 of the 53, the results could not be replicated by Begley and his team of around 100 scientists. “It was shocking,” said Begley.

In other words, drugs featured in the publications were said to have benefits that they did not actually have.

Research carried out by MacMillan Cancer Support analysed almost 85,000 cancer patients’ interactions with the NHS in England over a seven-year period (2004–2011).
It found that only a small number of cancer patients who undergo standard treatment will live both long-term and in good health. The remaining long-term survivors will develop other serious health conditions such as heart, kidney or liver disease, get another type of cancer, or their cancer will spread or come back.

The patients studied in the first phase of the programme had one of four common cancer types:

  • Breast cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Lung cancer
  • Brain or central nervous system (CNS) cancer

Lung Cancer

  • Fewer than one in three people living for a year or more after diagnosis.
  • One in five people with lung cancer die within one month of diagnosis.
  • Fewer than 1% will survive long-term and in good health.
  • More than half (56%) die within six months of diagnosis
  • Almost three in four (73%) die within a year.
  • Just one in 20 (5%) people with lung cancer live for at least seven years after diagnosis, however most people who survive this long will have one or more of a range of other serious health conditions or will find that their cancer comes back or spreads, or that they get another type of cancer.

Brain cancer

  • Fewer than 2% of people with glioblastoma will live for seven years or more
  • More than half (55%) of people with glioblastoma die within six months of being diagnosed
  • People with brain/CNS cancer who survive at least five years have around an 800% increased risk of having another serious condition affecting the nervous system such as epilepsy, meningitis or spinal abscesses.

Breast cancer
• Only one in five women with breast cancer will survive both long-term and in good health

• The remaining long-term survivors have to cope with other serious health conditions such as heart, kidney or liver disease, get another type of cancer, or their cancer spreads or comes back.
• A small proportion of women with breast cancer – 3.2%, or around 850 of the women in the Routes from Diagnosis study – die within a year of being diagnosed despite the cancer never spreading beyond the breast or nearby tissue. More than two in three of these women (70%) are aged 75 or over.

Prostate cancer
• One in four men with prostate cancer will survive both long-term and in good health.
• The remaining long-term survivors have to cope with other serious health conditions such as heart, kidney or liver disease, get another type of cancer, or their cancer spreads or comes back.
• Around one in 12 (8%) men with prostate cancer die within a year of being diagnosed despite the cancer never spreading beyond the prostate. Four in five (82%) of these men are aged 75 or over.

Cancer Mortality rates

The graph shows that the number of cancer deaths per 100,000 people in Ireland fell between 1994 and 2015.
(Source: National Cancer Registry Ireland)

Male death rate fell from 260 to 197 per 100,000 population over the 21 years.
Female death rate fell from 182 to 148 per 100,000 population over the 21 years.

This small but welcome drop in the death rate over the 21 years is not necessarily due to better conventional treatments as claimed, but could be due to a number of factors, including:

  • Earlier detection of bona fide cancers
  • Greater use of Complementary therapies
  • Greater use of non-conventional treatments
  • Diet and Lifestyle changes
  • Smoking cessation
  • Reduction in use of HRT
  • Greater awareness
  • Other factors

Also, a number of pre-cancerous conditions are often picked up very early and treated 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.

Fear of litigation should not be an issue.
The oncology community ensures that only the conventional treatments it endorses are permitted in hospitals. However, progressive oncologists should be free to offer proven Alternative and Integrative treatments in line with a patients wishes.

To avoid litigation issues, the patient would be informed that the treatment is non- conventional and would be required to sign a release. Patients already sign such releases in the case of surgical procedures and tests. This way, oncologists could follow their conscience in individual cases rather than adhering to outdated regulations that demand “one-size-fits-all” treatment for all patients. This would be enormously beneficial to patients.

“Conventional treatments are tried and trusted methods, with a long history of use.” Irish Cancer Society

Back to top

Please share this page