CHEMOTHERAPY, AND INTERESTING CHOICE

[Guest guest]

Chemotherapy,

an Interesting Choice

Jon Barron

Mark Twain quoted Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England,

as saying: " There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn

lies, and statistics. " That statement is even more true (and

dangerous) when applied to medical studies. One example is the recent

Oxford University study published in The Lancet which touts the

effectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supports

the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for

five years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third.

 

Very impressive, until you realize that you've just been " statistic-

ed. "

 

As presented, the newspaper cites studies proving the efficacy of

tamoxifen that consistently read something like " The National Cancer

Institute's Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a

49 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women who

took tamoxifen for five years. "

 

That's stunning. If your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cut

your chances of getting breast cancer by 49%, would there be any

question in your mind on whether or not to use it? Not in mine – at

least until I talked to Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past the

statistics, the truth is that according to the study, your odds of

getting breast cancer without using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and with

tamoxifen it dropped to .68%. That represents a 49% difference

between the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-half

of one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.

 

And for that meager sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we now

need to consider that tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus,

ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins found

that tamoxifen promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of the

World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on

Cancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. In

another abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen

developed endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs,

130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood

vessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss.

Other permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, corneal

changes, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the half

percent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by using

tamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and life

threatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastly

different from the 49% " statistic-ed " improvement cited in the

studies – and hardly worth the increased risk.

 

Once you look behind the numbers, is it any wonder the " war on

cancer " continues to fail so miserably? The problem is that the

doctors themselves believe the statistically manipulated numbers they

feed to the public. And yet, the general trend is undeniable. Things

are not getting better. The incidence rate of cancer has exploded

from around one in five hundred in 1900 to approximately one in two

today. And for every statistical blip downward in selected cancers

such as breast and prostate cancer (after years of soaring incidence

and mortality, mind you), there is a significant jump in " new, " even

more deadly cancers such as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.

 

Chemotherapy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

For those of you who are new to the debate, let me explain some of

the pros and cons of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a high

probability that you or someone you know will have to face the

decision on how to treat cancer.

 

Before we get into how chemotherapy works, it's probably worth a

little digression to talk about its history. The first drug used for

cancer chemotherapy was not originally intended for that purpose.

Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I

and was studied further during World War II. During a military

operation in World War II, a group of people were accidentally

exposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low white

blood cell counts. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged the

rapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on

cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advanced

lymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drug

by vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Their

improvement, although temporary, was remarkable. That experience

started researchers studying other substances that might have similar

effects against cancer.

 

Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells anywhere in the body,

including cells that have broken off from a main tumor and traveled

through the blood or lymph systems to other parts of the body. Many

doctors have successfully slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapy

after a tumor has been surgically removed . How does it work?

Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells in

our body that multiply the most rapidly, which is how the majority of

cancer cells perform. So, if your cancer cells are rapidly

multiplying, you may find chemotherapy effective.

 

The major disadvantage to chemotherapy is that the drugs don't just

kill the cancer cells that are dividing, but any dividing cell,

including the multitude of healthy cells all over the body caught in

the act of dividing. For those whose " healthy " cells are multiplying

faster than the cancer cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance

of success. This explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to

4% of cancers – primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic

Leukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.

 

For the majority of people who have healthy cell division, you may

end up killing the body before the cancer. For instance, there is a

high probability that certain fast multiplying immune system cells

including our T and B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to our

body's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that arise as a

result of the treatment. Other cells that grow fast are cells of the

bone marrow that produce blood cells, cells in the stomach and

intestines, and cells of the hair follicles, which is why a patient's

hair usually falls out.

 

In either event, the drug's objective is to poison the system—

creating horrendous pain and illness often worse than the disease

itself. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and cause

blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into

convulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and

progressive weakness. Some drugs can slough the entire lining of the

intestines. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The

brain loses memory. The hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing are

impaired. The kidneys are damaged. Sores appear in the mouth and

throat. The body bleeds and bruises easily and can't fight

infections. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony

for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather

than to continue treatment. It makes you wonder how most people die

when they report the rising cancer death statistics.

 

It's especially telling when a number of surveys over the years show

that most chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves or

recommend it for their families. Today's chemotherapy drugs are the

most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. In

fact, personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions to

avoid exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard

reference for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handling

cytotoxic agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical

personnel who work around the chemicals. In addition, increased

concerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies]

continue to be investigated.

 

The sad part is that we accept these types of results, feeling that

we have no choice in the matter. We submissively believe the medical

community's statement that chemotherapy " improves quality of life "

even though most doctors find this absurd. Some doctors, such as Dr.

Ulrich Abel, go so far as to state that there is no scientific

evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend the lives of patients

suffering from 80% of all cancers.

 

Bottom line, orthodox chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, and

carcinogenic. As death rates keep going up, so why then do the

majority of doctors and oncologists still push chemotherapy?

 

First, effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA

defines an " effective " drug as one that achieves a 50% or more

reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases

there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28

days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when a

doctor says " effective " to a cancer patient, it does not mean it

cures cancer—only temporary shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeli

again?)

 

Secondly, most doctors just don't know what else to do. They face

patients that they feel have hopeless conditions and justify the

continual loss of life brought about by these drugs because it's the

only alternative they know (along with surgery and radiation). They

refer to this stage not as therapy, but as experimentation, which is

better than telling a patient there is no hope. As for oncologists,

they have devoted countless hours to the understanding of poisonous,

deadly compounds and how to administer these drugs. This too is all

they know. They all want to help cancer patients, but they don't have

other options in their arsenal – certainly not options that come from

outside the medical fraternity.

 

Third, and commonly seen in all major industries, as long as drug

companies and the cancer industry see profits, there will be little

motivation to change. It is not surprising that the cancer industry

turns over in excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few who

sought alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss of

licensure, professional smearing, and ostracism. One such person is

Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical

Association, who stated at a recent National Institute of Health

meeting, about chemotherapy: " [it's] a marvelous opportunity for

rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical

principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at

physicians and prescribers. "

 

And last but not least, in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapy

absolutely does help – which is not to say that other approaches

wouldn't work as well, or better. But it is, in fact, this minimal

success rate that fuels the continued use of the therapy. Based on

these occasional successes, doctors will often pressure patients to

opt for the therapy even when it has little chance of success in

their particular cases.

 

Also, it is worth noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely from

cancer to cancer – sometimes improving " short-term " survivability by

as much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example,

the statistical chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lung

cancer are less than 1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure their

patients into utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective and

debilitating treatment. And on top of everything else, the success

rate for chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likely

to be effective with the young who have strong immune systems,

dropping to about 50/50 by age 50. And by 50/50, I don't mean that

it's effective 50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call as

to whether doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option in

terms of survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically better

off doing nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.

 

Keep in mind that whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, no

one can ever claim it addresses the cause of cancer. It merely

attacks the symptom. No one, even the most jaded doctor in the world,

claims that people get cancer because they're suffering from a

chemotherapy deficiency.

 

Obviously, there is only so much we can do with the current state of

affairs and we should not expect the industry to change any time

soon. However, we do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comes

to our personal health and wellness due to ignorance, money, and

bureaucrats.

 

Solution -- Take an Active Role

I always encourage people to take an active role in their health, and

this is even more important when you are dealing with a catastrophic

illness such as cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and research

your specific type of cancer to understand both the conventional and

non-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look for

strategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the body

to heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons from

the Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fighting

cancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoid

cancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy at

www.jonbarron.org. And while you're there, be sure to check out the

newsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or what

conclusion you draw from any study or statistic. Know the motive

behind the study. Don't be " statistic-ed. " In the end, we are the

ones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent to

look at the details.

 

And one final note. There is more hope than you can possibly imagine

in terms of dealing with cancer. There are at least 18 different

peoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer – many of these

cannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture.

Do genetics play a role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures are

cancer free, it makes the environmental and lifestyle connections

undeniable – especially when those cancer rates change once they move

from their original environment. That means that for most of us, we

can dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer in

the first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying our

environmental and lifestyle circumstances.