by Dave Mihalovic
March 31, 2014
from PreventDisease Website
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
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.
Chemotherapy does not target cancer cells, and because of this, chemotherapy:
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.
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.
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:
To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning:
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".
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.
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.
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.
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 (see 'Global
Cancer Statistics 2011'), and #2 in
So, if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less:
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.
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.
No. All of it
goes to drugs and surgery,
which do not work.
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.
Cancer treatment or
diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or
How Chemotherapy Actually
Boosts Cancer Growth
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumors.
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.
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:
Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president of the American Chemical Society writes,
And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist,
Dr. Allen Levin stated:
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.