97 Percent Of The Time Chemotherapy Does Not Work

Original Article March 31, 2014 by DAVE MIHALOVIC

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. 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 above variables.

Why? Money, greed and profits run the cancer industry--nothing else. 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.

If orthodox medicine were truly interested in curing cancer and healing people, don't you think they would look for a way to target cancer cells with the intent of killing them while sparing normal cells?

Chemotherapy does not target cancer cells, and because of this, chemotherapy:

1) Kills far more normal cells than cancer cells, and
2) Damages and toxifies many of the normal cells that do survive.

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.

You might ask your oncologist why your chances of survival are only 3% (ignoring all of their statistical gibberish such as "5-year survival rates" and deceptive terms like "remission" and "response"), when your chance of survival would be over 90% if they used something like DMSO. 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.

Why Is Chemotherapy Killing So Many People?

Why does concentrated cyanide kill you? How do anthrax, arsenic, and zyklon B kill you? They are all poisons. 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: continue the research because it is producing results; do not try preventive, alternative theoretical or therapeutic roads, nor get discouraged by the fact that patients keep on dying every day. To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning: you have a 50 percent chance of making it, as long as you follow the conventional therapeutic protocols without trying what they claim are the useless alternatives.

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”.

It is equally clear how often these presumed neoplasias, which are often subject to both misunderstanding and manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility.

So, in the early stages of tumors (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages -- that is, where they certainly are tumors -- the rates are barely above zero. The reason for the discrepency is the qualification of the data and how a patient is assessed in terms of recovery. 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.

Adjuvant chemotherapy is often given to patients who might not really need it at all. Oncologists do not consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits and thus compromise quality of life for every patient they treat. 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.

Another study in the American Society of Clinical Oncology determined whether long-term survivors of metastatic testicular cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity more than 10 years after chemotherapy. 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.
It's a Business 

Why would any corporation have an interest in treating cancer when it generates well over $100 BILLION DOLLARS annually? Follow the money and you'll discover quickly why people continue to get cancer. 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, and #2 in developing countries. 

Dr. Glidden further explains: If you go to a medical doctor with a sinus infection and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now, if he prescribes 5,000 units of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference, but he gets no direct remuneration. With chemotherapeutic drugs, it's different. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of. 

So, if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here's how it goes more or less: The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for $5,000, sells it to the patient for $12,000, insurance pays $9,000, and the doctor pockets the $4,000 difference. If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No.

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.

Medical doctors are like colorblind art critics. They can see that that's a boat. They can see the black and white outline, but they're completely blind to all of the colors and textures that make up the substance of the thing. 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.

When people get together and do a 5K run for breast cancer, all of that money--do you think any of that money goes to nutritional research? Do you think any of that money goes to homeopathic research or acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine or naturopathic research? No. All of it goes to drugs and surgery, which do not work. 

Why aren't those women running for selenium? If every girl in this country took 200 mcg of selenium, in one generation we'd eliminate breast cancer by 82%. That's a big number. 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.

There has been a 68% increase in the use of chemotherapy drugs since 2003 and despite the massive increase in the incidence of cancer since then; the risk factors (according to the cancer industry) for primary and secondary cancers are still related to tobacco, alcohol, occupational exposures and genetic determinants. Cancer treatment or diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or secondary cancers.

How Chemotherapy Actually Boosts Cancer Growth

Researchers tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics," wrote the team.
The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.
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.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

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: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president of the American Chemical Society writes, “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “...if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

Dr. Allen Levin stated: “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” 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.

Sources: