It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Scam - Effectiveness of Chemo - just over 2%

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The health care industry worldwide is being hijacked by the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical conglomerates.

It has taken advantage of its God like reputation to propagate dubious and ineffective treatments that drains most countries's struggling health resources. The power these establishments hold is immense, even to the degree in which they can influence or call their tunes with governments.

Foremost in this tragic story is the mandatory administering of Chemo Therapy to cancer sufferers. The billions of dollars worldwide the drug companies are reaping from cancer patients is reprehensible. The effectiveness of this treatment has never been called to question for good reasons.

Making obscene profits at the expense of giving patients false hope, and who are fighting for their lives, must be one of the lowest denominations of humanity. The efficacy of chemo has been so grossly overrated that desperate sufferers have been led to think it is their only hope.

In a recent paper published in the Australian Journal Clinical Oncology, it found "chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients." And that is after the authors (all oncologist) deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy.

Full article here:
www.icnr.com...

Of course, this paper did not receive much exposure anywhere. It is not something the almighty powers to be would want too many people to know, or be aware of.

Imagine if an alternative medical practitioner were to administer treatments with that same appalling rate of failures, he will be hounded out of the profession or even jailed for practicing quackery.

If the amount of money being siphoned off the public were to be spent on alternative and safer treatments, there would be cures for many ailments in the world today. The health services of most countries will be better off.

Moreover, the medical cartel, has been using its influence to pressure governments to increase control & restrictions for the alternative health industry. The growing popularity and adoption of alternative medicine is eating into their profits. Their insidious high level maneuverings may one day force us to buy vitamins behind the counter.

Public's well being is not high on the agenda of the drug companies. Selling safe, healing drugs are not in their best interest. Their mantra is to design drugs that are patentable, profitable and has side effects, so that you have to take another drug to counter the effect of the first, and so on. The doctors designated as legalized drug pushers to ensure continuous sales.

The symbiotic relationship between the doctors & drug companies are at best highly immoral. Incentives given to the doctors for sales of specific drugs goes on all the time. This practice ensures people are put on medications when there are really no good reasons to. The misuse of antibiotics is a good example, one that has far reaching consequence to this day.

Ask any person over the age of 60 and find out the cocktail of drugs they have been prescribed routinely by their MD. Foremost in the list would be for high blood pressure or high cholesterol which are easily avoidable through lifestyle change. That would not be conducive to the profession's bottom line. Most patients are seldom informed of the serious side effects these seemingly innocent drugs can cause.

Check out the list of FDA drugs recall and you get an idea. The FDA unholy alliance with the drug companies is another story. To think it is the supreme authority all Americans have entrusted to looked after their well being, is frightening.

In this age of easy access to info on the internet, it is the duty of everybody to do their own research and be informed. Not just blindly obedient to what their doctor dictates, but to raise question at every opportunity. You owe your body that much.



[edit on 3-4-2009 by A Conscience]

[edit on 3-4-2009 by A Conscience]




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


Some friends didn't have medical Insurance, so they asked their family from India to send them some cold and flu medicine. Customs confiscated their medicine and now they are in trouble. I personally send some money to China to buy some herbs a year ago. They never received the cheque that I mailed it to them. We are controlled. There is no freedom.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 


I have always thought that when a country and it's corporate masters find
sickness, pain and suffering of its citizens to be a source of profit; to be morally bankrupt and will suffer the consequences of it's greed.





[edit on 3-4-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I think if humanity is still around in a generation from now we'll look back and think, "why did we think blasting somebody with radiation would help?"

Oh and ladies, I'm offering radiation-free mammograms (no fatties).



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The efficacy of any cancer treatment depends on the form of cancer. Some cancers are very treatable, others are not. This study included all forms of cancer including those in which chemotherapy is not used.


Michael Boyer: Well it doesn’t sound impressive and it’s also not correct. It’s not correct for a number of reasons. That 2% figure is achieved by including a whole series of diseases in which chemotherapy would never be used. The paper itself actually states that yet they are included as part of the denominator if you like. So if you start taking those things out and saying well OK, how much does chemotherapy add in the people that you might actually use it, the numbers start creeping up. If you pull it altogether that number probably comes up to 5% or 6%, I guess what’s important is that it doesn’t go up to 50% or 60% but we know that and we know that these treatments are at the margin.



The fact is that from a patient’s perspective they are not really interested in how much chemotherapy contributes to the cure of all patients, what they are interested in is how much it will contribute to their particular disease and their stage of their disease. And that number ranges from zero in some cases up to almost 100% in other cases. So I don’t think this paper helps from a patient’s perspective.


www.abc.net.au...

From my point of view chemotherapy is very effective. It got rid of my cancer 22 years ago.

[edit on 4/3/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



From my point of view chemotherapy is very effective. It got rid of my cancer 22 years ago.


Consider yourself very lucky, as chemo patients tend to die of infections rather than from the cancer itself.

A form of treatment that annihilate the immune system, is in my mind, totally unacceptable.

You may have had some form of cover for the cost of the treatment, but in some countries, it practically drain's one's life saving to undergo such a treatment. A treatment with such mediocre record.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 

Lucky?

Was I "lucky" I had a very good and highly educated oncologist? Was I lucky that the technicians who provided the therapy were well trained? Was I lucky that the drug manufacturers spent millions upon millions of dollars on research? Was I lucky that there was a state of the art radiotherapy facility available (also costing millions of dollars)?

Was I lucky that the survival rate for my form of cancer, with treatment, is in the neighborhood of 95%? I met others with my form of cancer who refused conventional therapy. They weren't so lucky as I. They are no longer with us. Without treatment the survival rate is 0%.

Studies such as this, which provide a very distorted view of the efficacy of cancer treatment are a disservice. Anyone who encourages cancer patients to "alternative" therapies before conventional therapies have been tried is either ignorant or immoral.

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Ive lost both my parents, to lung cancer. From what ive learend...chemo can be effective, depending on what stage its in...
in my parents case, they both were in stage 4, which prettu much means its too late. All chemo is goig to do at this point, is prolong yuor life for anohter 6 to 8 months max.
IF the doctors had found and diagnosed them when it was no farther than early stage 2, they could have easily gotten another decade of life..and hwo knows, cured.. well cured may not be the word, but a chance the cancer wouldnt come back.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
For the record..in both my parnets cases, both have been lifelong smokers.. they died at ages 57 to 60. The survival rate given to both parents, was less than 20%



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Studies such as this, which provide a very distorted view of the efficacy of cancer treatment are a disservice. Anyone who encourages cancer patients to "alternative" therapies before conventional therapies have been tried is either ignorant or immoral.


Yes, you are lucky. The people who I had personally known or know of who underwent chemo aren't so lucky to be able to sing the praises.

You are fortunate (forgive the choice of word) enough to be afflicted with one of those that are curable, but thousands, even millions worldwide can't testify to that.

You forget that it could be the surgeries that contributed to whatever paltry figure of success that chemo can lay claim to.

There aren't many studies I know off that is about the efficacy of chemo treatment. With a record like that, would the drug companies encourage such endeavors? Would they jeopardize their strangle hold on the health system?

And, are you saying the 3 eminent oncologists that came up with that paper aren't qualified to give an unbiased assessment and opinion? People like that, who are prepared to go out on a limb and challenge accepted practice, I can only view them with great admiration.

Besides, you are missing the point here and treating this too personally. You are sounding too much of an apologist for a failed system.

For a treatment that is given such prominence, even monopoly status, and immensely costly in the treatment of such a scourge, shouldn't the public be entitled to a much safer and more dependable alternative?


[edit on 5-4-2009 by A Conscience]



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
From what i also remember the doctors talking about..our lymph nodes.. cancer can be treated, but when it gets to yuor lymph nodes, its carried throughout your body, so we were told. Best chanes of using chemo, is before it gets into the lymph nodes.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by A Conscience
 

Lucky?

Was I "lucky" I had a very good and highly educated oncologist? Was I lucky that the technicians who provided the therapy were well trained? Was I...



Haha. Hey, after you consider yourself lucky, you should "thank God" too.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by A Conscience
 

The only surgery I had was exploratory, for staging of my disease. I had Hodgkins Disease, lymphatic cancer, third stage. Surgery could do nothing for me.

I believe that those who conducted this study are biased against chemotherapy. Why else would the sample group include those with cancers on which chemotherapy is not used? By including these cases, the efficacy of chemotherapy in cases in which it is best suited, in which the chances of success are greatest, is understated. There are cases in which no therapy will be effective, there are cases in which therapy will be very effective. This study effectively nullifies the cases in which chemotherapy is effective (such as mine). This study rolls all forms of cancer into one ball.

You want to throw out chemotherapy because this study shows that it has a 2% chance of success, regardless of the patient's condition. You want to tell people that chemotherapy is essentially useless. This is an untruth. You want people to use "alternatives". I was told to avoid radiation therapy. I was told to avoid chemotherapy. I was told to use "alternatives". As I said, those who took that advice are dead. I'm not.

I am not an apologist. I am a realist. My reality is my experience and that of those I know and those I have known. Yes, people die from cancer. Chemotherapy can delay or prevent some of those deaths.

There is no "monopoly". The world is full of quacks who offer to cure cancer by removing intestinal parasites, or injecting baking soda, or providing coffee enemas. Anyone is free do take whatever course they wish. But before they do so they should be well informed about what their particular disease is. Studies like this do not help. Studies like this feed ignorance.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm happy for you that you were successful with your treatment and it has a good success rate for your type of cancer.

That does no alter the fact that it is an overrated therapy with a dismal record overall. That is what the study is about. For a treatment that is placed with such position and priority by the medical fraternity for such a long time, with practically total exclusion of all other forms of therapy reeks of cartel like behavior.

Even worse, there is growing evidence that chemo treatment can lead to a second cancer. Acute leukemia has been observed following chemotherapeutic treatment of cancer of the ovary, lung and brain. In short, chemo therapy itself may be carcinogenic.

What sane person will recommend a treatment that may cause the very illness it is treating. Unless, the high profitability of the treatment overrides all other considerations, be it moral or ethical.

With this Russian roulette of therapy, one wonders why safer alternative forms of therapy are not being offered.

"Patent", that is what it is all about. Most alternative treatments are not patentable, so there's not that obscene amount of money to be made. In fact, big pharmas are known to abandon research into effective safe anti-cancer ingredients because they can't patent the specific compounds which are natural.

Regardless of whether some of these alternative treatments has merits, the big medical and pharma institutions ensures they are suppressed and discredited. It has the clout to do so and it uses it very effectively.

So people like you will go on believing that they are all "quacks" and obediently follow the status quo and continue to make them richer.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join