Last night I saw another 10 minute plug for some cancer drug on the "news", sponsered by big pharma no doubt. It was hailed as a major break through!

Just like all the other major break throughs every week of every year for the last 60 years.

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths in Britain, whose members are mostly taken from British medical royal colleges after looking at the cases of 600 cancer sufferers in the country who were dead within 30 days of treatment.

The majority of the said patients had already been declared "incurable" by doctors, and had been put on chemotherapy for palliative purposes. And the study found that about 1 in every 4 of such deaths had either been sped up or even caused by chemotherapy.

The study's findings also included the discovery that 2 out of every 5 of the patients had suffered significant poisoning from the treatment.

You go into hospital and the bastards poison you and charge you for it.

Many scientists not brainwashed or employed by the very powerful Cancer Industry would even say chemo must surely have caused or hastened more than a quarter of the deaths.

Chemotherapy, after all, as virtually everyone "knows", is a severely toxic treatment method, and a person has to be "strong enough" to withstand it, which is extremely strange and illogical considering that cancer patients already have seriously compromised immune systems.


6 main ways in which cancer statistics are manipulated to make them look better than they are :-

"Cure" is defined as being alive 5 years after diagnosis. This means that a person could be very sick with cancer for 5 years and 1 day, after which he or she dies, and still be declared as "cured" by chemotherapy. Isn't this simply playing with words?

Certain types of cancer and certain groups of people which exhibit poor recovery rates are simply excluded from overall statistics.!!!

This artificially raises the average "cure" rate. Easily curable cancerous and even pre-cancerous conditions are included in overall statistics. An example for the latter is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which was included in and now accounts for a significant portion of breast cancer statistics. This move artificially increases the overall recovery rate. Earlier detection is taken to mean longer survival time.

This means that a person may die at the exact same point of cancer development as another person, but the former is taken to have lived longer simply by virtue of the fact that his tumor was discovered earlier. In other words, different start points are used. Isn't this fraudulent?

Patients who fail to "complete" conventional treatment protocols are excluded from overall statistics. This means that if a patient prescribed a 10-course chemotherapy protocol dies after 9 sessions, he is not included as a "failure" case. More fraud.

Control groups, however, play by different rules. This, again, artificially raises cure rates for conventional protocols.

Isn't this totally unscientific?


Adjusting for relative survival rate. This is perhaps best explained by relative survival rates take into account the 'expected mortality figures'.

Put simply, this means that if a person hadn't died of cancer he might have been run over by a truck, and that must be factored into the equation!

Once again, this artificially raises the success rates of conventional treatment.

Conclusion would be that two main questions spring to mind.

Are cancer patients and their families informed of the fine print of cancer statistics when they are advised by their doctors to proceed with conventional cancer treatment, or when they are told that chemotherapy offers a such-and-such percentage of "cure" and is therefore their best (or only) option?

And, if, even after such deliberately deceptive maneuvers, official conventional cancer statistics still read so poorly, how bad exactly would the real statistics read without the blatant manipulation?

I read in JAMA 500000 die every year the in USA and 100000 every year in the UK from cancer showing that chemo is the biggest organized fraud rivaling that of the mafia ever as if it actually worked you would not have such high death rates.

the most interesting part about cancer therapy is that causes do not seem to matter, prevention revolves around the same old tired, low fat, no smoke, exercise and low calorie diet, so they can always blame the victim because no-one except the odd wacko will live on salad and train 20hrs/week over a lifetime. if more people did, they'd quickly adopt the requirements to be even more stringent (blood fat below 100mg/dl?) or completely different - a sleight of hand, so to speak.

not to mention antioxidants are deemed harmful and chemo agents are so toxic that pouring them over your hand will badly corrode it.

snake oil, iow.

the real kicker is that diagnosis of cancer may have changed, to include 'pre-cancerous lesions' which are not in fact cacnerous, thereby artificially increasing cancer and cure rates. from experience, cancer is a death sentence, unless your body regenerates one way or the other.

[edit on 2009.2.3 by Long Lance]

Cancer cells are ex-normal human cells,just really messed up. Now their mechanisms, appearance are almost like normal human cell just because of this. So majority of anti-cancer treatments use the fact that cancer cells devide faster then normal cells and messes up devision of ALL cells in the body. So disregarding that all drugs are poisons in low doses, majority of cancer treatments are poisons in high doses. In this you are correct. But so far there is no other solution present for majority of cancers but poisoning all the body hoping that cancer cells die first due to their instability. Chemo works this way, radiation treatments work this way.
It is not ideal and i personally bet on "immune system modulation "- type of treatment since it is excellent built in diagnostic tool that recognizes cancer cells and kills them all the time in the body. Only occasionally it slips and results are cancer. So trying to artificially modulate the system to recognize cancer cells as such will work most efficiently. Problem is that because once again cancer cells are very similar to normal cells immune system should not be modulated to attack normal cells too.
And just for your information - percentage of people surviving for 5 years after cancer treatment is still higher then percentage of people with cancer that were not treated,after same 5 years.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

I'm convinced there are simple, inexpensive cures to cancer, unlike this enormously inexpensive and ineffectual nightmare we call modern medicine.


When Healing Becomes A Crime:

Google Video Link

A World Without Cancer:

Google Video Link

[edit on 3-2-2009 by username371]

The cure for cancer isn't chemo or any other drug the pharmacutical companies provide, it's simply what you put into your body. Eat RAW organic vegetables, avoid meat/chicken and processed foods. A straight RAW diet will not provide the "fertilizer" in one's body to allow cancer cells to grow. Watch the DVD "Healing Cancer from the inside out".

Peace

Modern medicine has done a great job of putting labels on problems, not much more. When was the last time a cure for anything was developed? I think looking for a cause of cancer will lead to a witch hunt. Ever notcie how lung cancer is always tied with smoking, even if the person did not smoke they knew someone who smoked or got 3rd hand smoke from the garbage guy that comes once a week? Its not enough that everyone bought up that smoking "casues cancer" but now it is the ONLY reason people get lung cancer. It did not stop people from smoking it did however fuel law suits.

My friend works for one of the Big Pharma companies. I wont say which one or what he does but he's a world expert on specialized equipment within the company. He's basically said that they pay lip service to "Our job is to help people" but that's total bull# and it's now all about drugs to treat thing and not cure. They want to hook people into paying for a chronic treatment and don't even bother to look for a cure for anything anymore, only ways to treat the symptoms. There is very little, if any R&D that goes on anymore to look for cures by big pharma..that's been left up to the woefully underfunded government and university researchers and smaller pharma companies trying scratch out a niche market...which they turn around and then buy if they make a successful drug.

He told me once how like 90% of the company expenditure was spent on advertising and PR, and 10% is spend on R&D..and that R&D is on how they can re brand an existing drug..finding another use for it to treat something else. They slap a new name on it and it extends the patent for another so many years...stops other companies from making generics so the people have to continue to pay the insane costs they charge.

It's all about the money, as if that is any big news, but I know it's more than just speculation more or less right from the horses mouth. My friend has access to a lot of sensitive information and he says they are in a constant cat and mouse game with the FDA.

FDA may have some issues, but apparently they do not take things lightly and big pharma fears them for the most part because the FDA can shut them down instantly if they so choose and have done so in the past....but of course they're always trying to influence by greasing palms of the PTB.

I've heard many a story of bungling managers, infighting, problems with drugs, lazy employees, outright ignorance, and the low quality of some of the people who are making and testing the very drugs some of you take. Drives my friend crazy because he's the king chimp of the bunch and is actually working on stuff that will improve drugs and he's constantly embattled with corporate bull#, over worked, understaffed etc. etc..

Good news is, however, that form what he says the economic collapse is hitting them hard and he talks of the company starting to slowly implode under it own weight and bad management. Major cut backs and layoffs will be happening before long from the sounds of it.

what does everyone think about chlorine dioxide aka MMS? And Jim Humble?

Medical Marajuana is snake oil. It cures sobriety nothing more. By the time marajuana is 100% legal it will not matter because the marajuana advocates spent so much time making somking look so bad for you. You will not be able to smoke anything anywhere.

Thanks for sharing the view.
I just watched a documentary on PBS last night on March of Dimes an polio. Very interesting if "read" between the lines. what does this have to do with cancer? It is alleged that the ensuing vaccinations were the intentional start of the "Cancer" age.

My general question: All of my personal experiences with cancer, friends who were diagnosed, all died soon after the diagnosis.

The allegations that treatments to cure a disease actually contribute or directly cause more dmage or death is not limited to cancer. Another strong allegation is pitted against many of the allged treatments for HIV.

remember, barring all the other issues that mankind is facing, the biggest, most prominent and never really discussed is over population.

It's culling time.

Working in the medical field myself, I have often been shocked by the number of treatments for cancer and diabetes that show a great deal of promise, but aren't making it into actual trials. I've tracked a couple of these--one of which held promise as a potential basis for the first ever anti-diabetic drug, but I've seen this happen with cancer studies as well.

What happened to those studies is very interesting, frankly. After a few months, once the internet hubbub had died down, I patiently waited for scientific papers to be published on the findings.

None were.

Researchers have to publish something ...some account of what they did with their time, equipment, and funding, even if the results are ultimately discarded or their hypothesis disproven, but I've heard nothing further on several of these "breakthroughs," so far, and for studies like that to simply vanish is unheard of; search through a public-access engine like Google Scholar for a fine example of what I mean, here. If nothing else, this kind of research is often taken as a challenge to bored wiz-kid researchers seeking to disprove findings in university labs and the like.

Now, it may well be that something was ultimately published as a thesis or grad school project, which means that it will moulder on a shelf somewhere until the end of time, but... with something as "hot" as this topic has been, I would expect any such paper to be snapped up by the larger journals, frankly.

It's also possible that they simply haven't been written yet--research takes time, papers take time, and no one would publish much of anything unless the results were conclusively completed. On the other hand... given that the results were reported, one would assume that the original studies were at least near completion. Otherwise, it would be a bit like reporting the outcome of a race at the starting line.

The other possibility is that the funding on such research was yanked, which happens quite often, particularly in our current economy with so many universities cutting costs across the board (which, as the majority already knows, means that the football team will have new bleachers and uniforms this year while the science department continues to limp along with outdated equipment and buys their lab rats out of pocket... but I'm not bitter). Fund-pulling is the fastest possible way to kill research dead, and a lot of our research comes by way of the academic environment... and a fair amount of that research is funded by pharmaceutical companies these days (to cover the funding gaps mentioned above) which means... it's in their best interests to "un-fund" things that can't be translated into, well, money-making opportunities.

Cancer treatments are one of the most lucrative branches of the pharmaceutical industry, and I truly hate to even suspect that they might have a hand in prolonging the existence of such diseases, but there have simply been too many "breakthroughs" that never see the light of day for me to ignore this as a possibility.

To set my own mind at ease, I will also mention the possibility of private funding--if the results hold promise, as with the potential anti-diabetic drug mentioned above, it's possible that a pharma company could offer additional funding, have the researchers sign non-disclosure agreements, and keep a lid on all results until they're ready to take the new treatment to market or run official (read: human) trials on same.

That would also make a very good way to quietly end research on something that works a little too well, however. The company funding it can always say "the results were not borne out by further studies, the research was ended" and under the terms of non-disclosure, no one could even follow up.

Just 'cause I work in it doesn't mean I'm not suspicious of it...

[edit on 3-2-2009 by quitebored]

I find many of these anti chemo type posts to be offensive and cruel to the folks that are currently in treatment trying to fight for their survival.

The alternative approaches NEVER have data but NEVER get scrutinized. I find that to be a total double standard. I´ve had more friends die trying juice therapy and cottage cheese bull# than traditional chemo where many are still talking to me today.

Do some die? # yes many do. Too many...

Don´t try to take away the hopes of people who spend hours in a chair every day fighting for their lives right now. It´s frighting enough to get the courage to show up, the last thing we need are people like you.

i had breast cancer. my immune system wasn't weak, in fact, just the opposite. it was on high alert. kids would get flus and colds and viruses, and i wouldn't catch them (which is when i became suspicious...that and the pinching sensation when i laid on my chest). anyway, when you have cancer, you're not necessarily going to have a weaker immune system. it's fighting a major battle and behaves thusly.

the chemo, on the other hand, dang near killed me. well, rather, the chemo port they installed in my chest did. it got infected, and when it was flushed with saline, the infection went straight into my blood -- septacemia, at the end of chemo when i truly had no immune system. took me down in about an hour and a half. from just fine to shaking so bad, i could barely walk, from the fever. 10 days in hospital and prayer. survived it only to find my 20-20 vision had degraded to bifocal usage, and that my pancreas had decided to hit me with type 2 diabetes and massive neuropathy... literally, as soon as i got home from the hospital.. about a month after my last chemo treatement.

sure wish they had developed something a bit kinder. that was bad! and just imagine what it was like when it first came out and did alot more damage to healthy tissues, than it does today!

Ive lost 2 parents now, from smoking..but both underwent chemo therapy..even the doctors in the hospitol, when giving my parents the choice, frowned on it in front of them.. but to response to the post...i find it odd. radiation....i mean, example, they say if a nuclear weapon goes off, yuo have a good chance of getting cancer, becuase of the radiation,..so why would chemo therapy be different? its like getting the near lethal does of radiation, minus the detonation!

ziggy

almost seems like sunbathing without a top, in a nice tropical climate, would be safer, no?
i think it's safe between sunrise and 10am, and between 5pm and sundown. certainly healthier radiation. but i'm not a doc, so i don't know if that would be ENOUGH to do the job. problem with doing it that way is, it isn't accumulative. sorry to hear about your parents.