The Truth About Cancer - Chemotherapy

The Truth About Cancer

hemotherapy

"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo

is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer,

and Choriocarcinoma."---Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.

"NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from

171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein.

"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

(NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond

Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop

secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time

they are 40---which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four

years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of

developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years

(New Eng J Med,

March 21, 1996)

"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in

any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…

chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers

is a scientific wasteland."

---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion

spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not

lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik,

M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against

cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been

largely disappointing."

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than

treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better

than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-

threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences,

vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland.

He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that

the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said,

"Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes

off an individual".)

"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival

from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P Quillin, Ph.D.

"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century

we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.

"….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human

cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which

death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or

even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D.

"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream

oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer,

but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."

Diamond.

Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to

develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively

lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens.

Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

"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 tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo

than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.

According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the

5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for #016EBBs and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 -

1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the

smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the

Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year

survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept

upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of

11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of

"statistically significant" results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?Also,

Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops

from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca

patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca =

75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased

4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??

RD Hodgell, M.D.

"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They

now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the

disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been

a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign

diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point

to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates

improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by

Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM

Update, sept/oct 1990.

"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or

even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through

diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other

degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not

interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for

the majority of cancer patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.

"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s

chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D.

"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."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

John Robbins:

Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy - 3%

Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influcence

on survival or quality of life - none.

Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy
trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity" - 75%

Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%.

"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active

drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is

any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song

and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that

chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about

chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the

life of the patient."---Ralph Moss

"The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response, irrespective of

survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion

which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies. To date there is no clear

evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."

Abel.1990.

"For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or

have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...

(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."

General Accounting Office

"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the

clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D.,

Past President, American Chemical Society.

"He said, "I'm giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are killing them,

and I can't stop it because they say the protocol's what's important." And I say, "But the patient's not

doing well." They say, "The protocol's what's important, not the patient." And he said, "You can't believe

what goes on in the name of medicine and science in this country." --Gary Null

The Politics of Cancer---Epstein

That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was launched by

President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and

survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer

establishment---the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS).

That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _

and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the

incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime

cancer risks now approaching 50%.

That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and

the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last

year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion,

for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million.

That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most

avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being

a major cause of childhood cancer.

That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive

conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director

Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company."

That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making

unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer."

That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively

blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for

decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion

dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed

the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs.

That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth

than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that makes contributions to political parties.

That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista,

in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that

these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term

lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this

fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the

ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal.

That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific

information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace,

and consumer products _food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective

legislative and regulatory action have not been taken.

That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and

underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information

on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing

them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice.