Hiding the Truth About Losing the War on Cancer

[Guest guest]

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-cances. 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: Tanya 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 Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

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

- James Watson, 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

 

When

it comes to mainstream successes, of the three major mainstream

treatment methods, surgery is the only one with respectable success

rates and even then it is only successful the vast majority of the time

in those who have operable types of cancer that has not yet

metastisized at the time of diagnosis - and most cancers are not

detected prior to metastisizing.

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: Tanya 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"

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

 

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.

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. Today it appears that the

war with Iraq will ultimately end the same way.

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?

Tony M. Isaacs

Natural Health Advocate, Researcher and Author

Cancer's Natural Enemy e-book

Collected Remedies e-book

The Best Years in Life Website for Natural Health and Longevity

Ask Tony Isaacs CureZone Forum

Oleandersoup Soup Health Group

Utopia Silver Colloidal Silver, Plant Minerals and Natural Supplements

Jon Barron Baseline of Health Nutritional Formulas

Native Remedies

Mountain Herbs - Organic Harvested Fresh

"In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties."

- Henri-Frederic Amiel 1828-1881st of all liberties."

"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. Alexis Carrol (Famous Biological Scientist and head of the Rockefellar Institute)