Hiding the Truth About Losing the War on Cancer

[Guest guest]

HTML clipboard

Hiding the Truth About Losing the War on Cancer

by Tony M. Isaacs

For well over half a century we have been promised by mainstream

medicine that a cure or major breakthrough for cancer was just around

the corner. Every year we see promising new drugs and therapies

announced. Yet every year we also see more people contract cancer and

more people die of cancer.

Instead of focusing on natural and safe methods of prevention and

treatment, we continue to treat by using surgery, chemotherapy and

radiation to cut out, poison out and burn out the symptoms of cancer

while leaving the underlying causes untreated - and we continue to

largely ignore the role that proper diet, nutrition and lifestyle plays

in preventing and helping cure cancer.

Although surgery does have some success against a limited number of

cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of

survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes

completely cancer free and the cancer never returns). The fact is that

for those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the

survival rate for those who had no treatment at all increases steadily

and for those who had mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.

Sources: Dr. Ralph Moss and Webster Kehr, the " Cancer Tutor "

Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a year cancer

industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment.

One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives. Another is to

misreport their success rates by altering statistics to make their

success appear to be much better than it actually is.

Here are six ways that mainstream medicine misreports their statistics:

1. By re-defining " cure " as " alive five years after diagnosis: instead

of using the word's real meaning, which is " cancer-free " . Thus a

patient could still have cancer the entire five years and die one day

after the 5th anniversary date of diagnosis and still be recorded as a

cure.

2. By simply omitting certain groups of people, such as African

Americans, or by omitting certain types of cancer, such as all lung

cancers patients, from their statistical calculations.

3. By including types of cancer that are not life-threatening and are

easily curable, such as skin cancers and DCIS.

The statistics most commonly reported include many such easily curable

cancers, such as localized cancers of the cervix, non-spreading cancers

and melanomas, as well as " cancers " that many feel are not true cancers

at all, merely pre-cancers. For example, DCIS is a pre-cancerous

condition that is 99% curable and makes up 30% of all breast cancers.

Deduct that 30% from the breast cancer cure rates and survival

statistics and and the figures are much less impressive.

4. By allowing earlier detection to erroneously imply longer survival.

5. By deleting patients from cancer treatment studies who die too soon,

even if that is on the 89th day of a 90 day chemotherapy protocol.

6. By using a questionable adjustment called " relative survival rate "

where they get to deduct a certain number of cancer victims who

statistics say would have died during the five years of other causes

such as heart attacks, car wrecks, etc.

Source: Harter Pierce " Outsmart Your Cancer "

These outrageous " fudges " , as Ms. Harter too kindly calls them, have

all been incorporated into cancer cure statistics to hide the fact that

the war on cancer has been hopelessly lost and wrongly waged. In the

opinion of many who are far more knowledgeable and qualified than I am,

the so-called War on Cancer is little more than a hoax.

" Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and

that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their

duties to the people who support them. " - Linus ing PhD (Two-time

Nobel Prize winner).

" The National Anti-Cancer Program is a bunch of sh*t. "

- , Nobel Laureate for Medicine in 1962 , joint discoverer

of the double helix of DNA, and for two years a member of the US Joint

Advisory Committee on Cancer

Of the three major mainstream treatment methods, surgery is the only

one with respectable success rates. When it is successful, the vast

majority of the time it is where the patients had operable types of

cancer that had not yet metastasized at the time of diagnosis - and most

cancers are not detected prior to metastasizing.

When it comes to Chemo, in the words of Dr. Ralph Moss:

" Chemo has some success in a few kinds of cancer, but in the

conventional cancers which chemotherapy sometimes " works " such as

small-cell lung cancers, the actual survival benefit is reckoned in

weeks or months, not in years. And during this time, the patient is

likely to experience major, even life threatening, side effects from

the treatment, so the overall advantage to the patient is moot. "

Radiation results are even more dismal. In some studies, patients who

opted for radiation have had lower survival rates than those who did

not have radiation.

Sources: Harter Pierce, Dr. Rath Foundation

Another common deception of mainstream medicine is to quote " response

rates " , which is defined as having a 50% tumor shrinkage for a period

of twelve months. It has nothing to do with cure rates or long term

survival, but it is the statistic that is often quoted to patient by

their oncologists.

Yet another deception is the use of the term " remission " to imply cure,

when it is nothing of the sort. As " the Cancer Tutor " Webster Kehr

writes in " The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine

<http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween.html> "

First of all, the National Cancer Institute defines " remission " as:

* " A decrease in or disappearance of signs and symptoms of cancer.

In partial remission, some, but not all, signs and symptoms of cancer

have disappeared. In complete remission, all signs and symptoms of

cancer have disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body. "

NCI - http://www.nci.nih.gov/dictionary/db_alpha.aspx?expand=R

<http://www.nci.nih.gov/dictionary/db_alpha.aspx?expand=R>

What exactly does this definition mean relative to the three " treatment

decision criteria " . . . You, the citizen, are supposed to assume that

" remission " means a person is cured of their cancer. But that is not

what the definition states. It states there is an absence of " signs and

symptoms. " So is there a correlation between the absence of " signs and

symptoms " and the three treatment decision criteria above?

Generally, the determination of remission is based on a reduction in

the size of the tumor or in the change of some tumor marker. These

things may indicate the number of cancer cells in the body, but they

are very, very crude estimates of the number of cancer cells in the

body. These numbers also do not measure the pain and suffering of the

patient (i.e. the quality of life) or the status of the immunity

system, which is very, very important if all of the cancer cells have

not been killed. "

And then there is what is likely the greatest mainstream deception of

all: the millions of people who are diagnosed with cancer, but actually

die from the damages done by chemotherapy and radiation, most

frequently major organ failure. All of those deaths are recorded as

due to cancer. Though that does not bolster the mainstream cancer

treatment success rates, it helps hide the dangers and deaths due to

mainstream treatments.

HTML clipboard

It should be plain that the war against cancer is not being won - and

to continue to claim otherwise after over half a century begs the

question of why such obviously false and misleading claims and

statistics. In this respect, one is reminded of the Vietnam War, where

we were told that we won every battle and that we killed many more of

the enemy in every skirmish. And yet the war was a failure and in the

end we admitted it, stopped deceiving the public, and moved on to a

different approach to stop the needless loss of lives.

The war against cancer has lasted much longer and we have lost millions

and millions of lives. After over half a century of failure, one has

to ask how long will it take to admit it, stop deceiving the public,

and move on to a different approach to stop the needless loss of lives?

" Nature alone can cure disease. Doctors cannot heal. They can only

direct the sufferer back to the pathways of health. Nature alone can

create, and healing is re-creation. "

- Dr. Willaim S. Sadler

" Unless the doctor of today becomes the dietitian of tomorrow, the

dietitian of today will become the doctor of tomorrow. "

- Dr. is Carrol (Famous Biological Scientist and head of the

Rockefeller Institute)