March 31, 2014 by DAVE MIHALOVIC
97 Percent of The Time,
Chemotherapy Does Not Work And Continues To Be Used Only For One Reason
Doctors and pharmaceutical
companies make money from it. That's the only reason chemotherapy is still
used. Not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes
any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts
cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either
die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment. It destroys
their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine
functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities. Patients basically live
in a permanent state of disease until their death. The cancer industry
marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented,
expensive, and toxic remedies whose risks far exceed any benefit. This is what
they do best, and they do it because it makes money, plain and simple.
The reason a 5-year relative
survival rate is the standard used to assess mortality rates is due to most
cancer patients going downhill after this period. It's exceptionally bad for
business and the cancer industry knows it. They could never show the public the
true 97% statistical failure rate in treating long-term metastatic cancers. If
they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic
chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous
evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system,
quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world
that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all. No
such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history
of chemotherapy. The only studies available come from industry funded
institutions and scientists and none of them have ever inclusively quantified
the above variables.
Why? Money, greed and profits run
the cancer industry--nothing else. The cancer establishment must retreat from
the truth to treat cancer because there will never be any profit for them in in
eradicating the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects
consumers from being subjected to these toxic therapies or even known
carcinogens in our foods our environment, because that too, will prevent the
profits from rolling in. It's a business of mammoth proportions and must be
treated as such. The most powerful anti-carcinogenic plants in the world such
as cannabis must be demonized and be made illegal because they are so effective
at killing cancer cells without side effects. Cannabinoids are so efficient at
treating disease, that the U.S. Government patented them in 2003.
If orthodox medicine were truly
interested in curing cancer and healing people, don't you think they would look
for a way to target cancer cells with the intent of killing them while sparing
normal cells?
Chemotherapy does not target
cancer cells, and because of this, chemotherapy:
1) Kills far more normal cells
than cancer cells, and
2) Damages and toxifies many of
the normal cells that do survive.
If a "magic bullet"
were used FIRST by orthodox medicine, meaning the cut/burn/slash/poison
treatments were avoided, a 90% true cure rate would be easy to achieve. But the
fact is that the leaders in the medical community have absolutely no interest
in finding a "magic bullet." A "magic bullet" would cost
the drug companies hundreds of billions of dollars, and patients would have
less hospitalization and less doctor visits, etc.
You might ask your oncologist why
your chances of survival are only 3% (ignoring all of their statistical
gibberish such as "5-year survival rates" and deceptive terms like
"remission" and "response"), when your chance of survival
would be over 90% if they used something like DMSO. Actually, bring up DMSO to
any oncologist and most of them won't even talk to you about it. Why? Because
DMSO is a natural product, cannot be patented and cannot be made profitable
because it is produced by the ton in the wood industry.
Why Is Chemotherapy Killing So
Many People?
Why does concentrated cyanide
kill you? How do anthrax, arsenic, and zyklon B kill you? They are all poisons.
Consume or inject enough poison into your body and you will eventually die.
Toxic chemotherapy drugs just happen to take a little longer than many of those
above, and they're designed that way. We couldn't have people dropping like
flies one week after receiving chemo or the gig would be over. Again, that
would be bad for business.
According to official statistics,
one person out of two is claimed to recover from cancer through conventional
methods. Although dramatic, the information nevertheless contains a certain
amount of hope, as implicitly it provides something positive for both
scientists and patients. To the scientists it says: continue the research
because it is producing results; do not try preventive, alternative theoretical
or therapeutic roads, nor get discouraged by the fact that patients keep on
dying every day. To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning: you
have a 50 percent chance of making it, as long as you follow the conventional
therapeutic protocols without trying what they claim are the useless
alternatives.
There is an international
classification (the TNM system) that classifies tumors on the basis of their
gravity. They are subdivided into stages I, II, III, IV, and into sub-groups.
It is clear to any trained eye that initial lesions that are doubtful or at the
limit of malignancy represent the overwhelming majority of the observed
“neoplasias”.
It is equally clear how often
these presumed neoplasias, which are often subject to both misunderstanding and
manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility.
So, in the early stages of tumors
(the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following
stages -- that is, where they certainly are tumors -- the rates are barely
above zero. The reason for the discrepency is the qualification of the data and
how a patient is assessed in terms of recovery. Immune reconstitution and
tolerance, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges, functional
outcomes, quality of life, and neurocognitive outcomes are NEVER inclusively
assessed in any clinical study discussing the long-term survival and recovery
rates of cancer patients. The damage to these systems slowly develops after
chemotherapy, however if often does not begin to manifest throughout the body
until several months or even years have passed. It takes time, but within a 3-5
year period, most chemotherapy patients begin to have many more symptoms of
disease than they every had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct
result of cytotoxic drug intervention.
Adjuvant chemotherapy is often
given to patients who might not really need it at all. Oncologists do not
consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits and thus
compromise quality of life for every patient they treat. A study in the Annals
of Oncology is one of few which assessed the different potential long-term
adverse events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer, with a
particular focus on long-term cardiac toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive
function, and neurotoxicity. The authors stated that the adverse events are
frequently overshadowed by the well-demonstrated clinical efficacy and/or
reassuring short-term safety profiles of the different chemotherapy regimens
commonly used today.
Another study in the American
Society of Clinical Oncology determined whether long-term survivors of
metastatic testicular cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity
more than 10 years after chemotherapy. They observed a significantly increased
risk for occurrence of cardiac events accompanied by a persisting unfavorable
cardiovascular risk profile likely due to chemotherapeutic agents.
Peter Glidden, BS, ND in the
video above describes the 12-year meta-analysis published in the Journal of
Clinical Oncology which observed adults who had developed cancer and treated
with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed cancer
as an adult. 97% of the time, chemotherapy did not work in regressing the
metastatic cancers.
It's a Business
Why would any corporation have an
interest in treating cancer when it generates well over $100 BILLION DOLLARS
annually? Follow the money and you'll discover quickly why people continue to
get cancer. When 50% of the population is developing a disease within their
lifetime, something is very wrong. In 2011, cancer was the #1 cause of death in
the Western world, and #2 in developing countries.
Dr. Glidden further explains: If
you go to a medical doctor with a sinus infection and that doctor prescribes an
antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000 units of
that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to
Cancun for a conference, but he gets no direct remuneration. With
chemotherapeutic drugs, it's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only
classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of.
So, if your doctor prescribes
chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less: The doctor buys it from
the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000,
insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. If Ford
Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they
still be in business? No.
With cancer treatment in the
United States, we have lost the war on cancer. Why? Because cancer is not a
reductionistic phenomenon. Cancer is a holistic phenomenon. When you try to
bring a reductionistic methodology like drugs and surgery to bear on a holistic
phenomenon, you will completely miss the boat each and every time. You cannot
do it.
Medical doctors are like
colorblind art critics. They can see that that's a boat. They can see the black
and white outline, but they're completely blind to all of the colors and
textures that make up the substance of the thing. There's no difference with
cancer. The reason that people get cancer in the United States and the reason
that we have completely lousy outcomes is because medical doctors are driving
the research bus.
When people get together and do a
5K run for breast cancer, all of that money--do you think any of that money
goes to nutritional research? Do you think any of that money goes to
homeopathic research or acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine or
naturopathic research? No. All of it goes to drugs and surgery, which do not
work.
Why aren't those women running
for selenium? If every girl in this country took 200 mcg of selenium, in one
generation we'd eliminate breast cancer by 82%. That's a big number. Why aren't
we doing that? Because medicine in the United States is a for-profit industry,
and most people are completely unaware of this, and most people bow down to the
altar of MD-directed high-tech medicine at their own demise.
There has been a 68% increase in
the use of chemotherapy drugs since 2003 and despite the massive increase in
the incidence of cancer since then; the risk factors (according to the cancer
industry) for primary and secondary cancers are still related to tobacco,
alcohol, occupational exposures and genetic determinants. Cancer treatment or
diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or secondary cancers.
How Chemotherapy Actually Boosts
Cancer Growth
Researchers tested the effects of
a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and
found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the
scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting
reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.
The scientists found that healthy
cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which
boosts cancer cell survival.
"The increase in WNT16B was
completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by
tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted,
would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and
importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumours
often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to
further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumour cell reproduction
have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
"Our results indicate that
damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumour
growth kinetics," wrote the team.
The researchers said they
confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.
Patients with incurable cancers
are promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them
extra months or years of life, however many doctors have been urged to be more
cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as
chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, advice supported by Nelson's
study.
Doctors Speak Out About The
Cancer Industry
Dr. Robert Atkins, MD, of Atkins
Diet fame once announced there are several cures for cancer, but there’s no
money in them. They’re natural, effective, and inexpensive, no expensive drugs
are involved but they require quite a lot of self-discipline from patients. It
costs millions to fund research and clinical trials needed to produce a new
cancer drug that can be patented and sold. Often these drugs create more
illness. It has been said that the key to success in the health business is to
pull off the trick of making people patients for life. Consider how many people
who registered a couple of abnormal blood pressure readings have been kept on
medication until the medication killed them, when a quick fix course of drugs
supported by major changes of diet and lifestyle would have returned their
physical condition to an unmedicated healthy state.
According to Dr. John Diamond,
M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly
strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie.
Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and
6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues
than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”
Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in
2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United
States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great
success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion
dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial
gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is
better than three doses of that poison.”
Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president
of the American Chemical Society writes, “As a chemist trained to interpret
data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear
evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” And according
to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “...if I contracted cancer, I
would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who
live far from such centres have a chance.”
Dr. Allen Levin stated: “Most
cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate
breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a
decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” In his book, The
Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, Dick Richards cites a number of
autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from
conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.
Sources:
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment