phooph
04-13-2009, 08:09 PM
ARE WE TREATING CANCER, BUT KILLING THE PATIENT?
Don't we live in a crazy toxic world! It's unbelievable some of the
things that intelligent human beings get up to, destroying their own
kind in the name of "medicine!" Read the following paragraph to
understand what I mean:
The consultant oncologist picks up the phone angrily and calls his
oncologist colleague who has been treating the patient sitting in front
of him, "stop all chemotherapy immediately, " he says, "you
have completely destroyed her liver which is pretty much
irrecoverable!"
This is exactly how this patient, who I was seeing for support using
natural medicine, told me the story. She has received over 20 courses
of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, plus countless surgeries, for a
breast cancer that metastized to the bones. Only God knows what her
destiny will be!
The other oncologist treating her was quite prepared to continue
bombarding her with more chemotherapy and radiation, without even
thinking of the detrimental effects and side effects. The cancer was the
enemy and this is what we shall attack, irrelevant whether we kill the
patient. "The tumour shrunk, but we lost the patient" is
something that is often heard in cancer circles.
To my mind the logic stinks and should be carefully reviewed by all who
say that they treat cancer. I think it is time to talk a little about
cancer treatments for two reasons first, it has reached pandemic
proportions and many families are afflicted with the trauma of this
disease, and second, because so many people are dying, even though they
are being treated with chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.
If you are being diagnosed with cancer, invariable you will be told to
undergo surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, etc.
These seem to be the only so-called "proven" paths to take. Most
people believe that all medical treatments are solidly grounded in
science, and that in order to be made available to patients, such
treatments must be unequivocally proven to be effective by rigorous
clinical trials. This is simply not true!
But are there other paths that the cancer patient can take, while still
under the care of their oncologist? The problem with any other natural
treatment is that it is seen with suspicion by most medical doctors,
often saying that they are unproven and therefore cannot be used. Dr.
David Brownstein, in the foreword of the book: Avoiding Breast Cancer
wrote: "The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that a cure
for cancer will be found by a "magic-bullet" drug. This will
never occur."
WHAT IS THE SUCCESS RATE OF CHEMOTHERAPY?
It's probably time to examine the success rate of chemotherapy that has
been used for so many decades. What is the success rate of chemotherapy
as used by oncologists?
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology
addresses exactly this question. This meta-analysis, entitled "The
Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult
Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual
benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the
commonest types of cancer.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate
Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore
Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at
University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author,
Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the
Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool
Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic
Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and
Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the
suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national
Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) roughly the equivalent of
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all
the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia
and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year
survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival
data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US
National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results
(SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004.
Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side
of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy.
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just
over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
Yet, despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy' s lack of
effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present
chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.
"Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy
will significantly improve cancer survival," the authors wrote in their
introduction. "However, despite the use of new and expensive single and
combination drugs to improve response rates...there has been little
impact from the use of newer regimens" (Morgan 2005).
The Australian authors continued: "...in lung cancer, the median
survival has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.]
and an overall survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved
in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers."
Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to
5-year survival in adults was:
2.3 percent in Australia
2.1 percent in the USA.
They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these
figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e.,
they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).
A FURTHER SIGNIFICANT STUDY
Another cancer researcher obtained similar results about 25 years ago,
back in the eighties. A German epidemiologist from the
Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumour Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a
comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical
trial of chemotherapy ever done. To make certain that he had reviewed
everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350
medical centres around the world asking them to send him anything they
had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it
is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than
he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:
Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was
"appalling," only 3%, because there was simply no scientific evidence
available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way
the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."
SUCCESS OF CHEMOTHERAPY ONLY THREE PERCENT!
In fact, he found similar figures to the Australian oncologists 3%
- yes that is three percent! Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely
can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a
scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of
chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin
to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing
to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence
that it works!
HOW WILL YOU TREAT YOUR CANCER DOCTOR?
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118
doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters
of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for
lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer,
and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose.
Of the 79 respondents, 64 (81%) said they would not consent to be in a
trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight or
74% of the oncologists found all the trials using any type of
chemotherapy unacceptable. What reasons did they give? Basically, they
quoted the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree
of toxicity.
Best wishes,
Dr. George J Georgiou, Ph.D.,ND.,D. Sc (AM)
Holistic Medicine Practitioner & Researcher
Director, DaVinci Natural Health Center
Panayia Aimatousa 300, Larnaca 7101, Cyprus
Tel: +357 24-823322
Fax: +357 24-823321
Web: www.naturaltherapyc enter.com <https://www.naturalt herapycenter. com/>
Web: www.detoxmetals. com <https://www.detoxmet als.com/>
Email: drgeorge@detoxmetal s.com
Don't we live in a crazy toxic world! It's unbelievable some of the
things that intelligent human beings get up to, destroying their own
kind in the name of "medicine!" Read the following paragraph to
understand what I mean:
The consultant oncologist picks up the phone angrily and calls his
oncologist colleague who has been treating the patient sitting in front
of him, "stop all chemotherapy immediately, " he says, "you
have completely destroyed her liver which is pretty much
irrecoverable!"
This is exactly how this patient, who I was seeing for support using
natural medicine, told me the story. She has received over 20 courses
of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, plus countless surgeries, for a
breast cancer that metastized to the bones. Only God knows what her
destiny will be!
The other oncologist treating her was quite prepared to continue
bombarding her with more chemotherapy and radiation, without even
thinking of the detrimental effects and side effects. The cancer was the
enemy and this is what we shall attack, irrelevant whether we kill the
patient. "The tumour shrunk, but we lost the patient" is
something that is often heard in cancer circles.
To my mind the logic stinks and should be carefully reviewed by all who
say that they treat cancer. I think it is time to talk a little about
cancer treatments for two reasons first, it has reached pandemic
proportions and many families are afflicted with the trauma of this
disease, and second, because so many people are dying, even though they
are being treated with chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.
If you are being diagnosed with cancer, invariable you will be told to
undergo surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, etc.
These seem to be the only so-called "proven" paths to take. Most
people believe that all medical treatments are solidly grounded in
science, and that in order to be made available to patients, such
treatments must be unequivocally proven to be effective by rigorous
clinical trials. This is simply not true!
But are there other paths that the cancer patient can take, while still
under the care of their oncologist? The problem with any other natural
treatment is that it is seen with suspicion by most medical doctors,
often saying that they are unproven and therefore cannot be used. Dr.
David Brownstein, in the foreword of the book: Avoiding Breast Cancer
wrote: "The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that a cure
for cancer will be found by a "magic-bullet" drug. This will
never occur."
WHAT IS THE SUCCESS RATE OF CHEMOTHERAPY?
It's probably time to examine the success rate of chemotherapy that has
been used for so many decades. What is the success rate of chemotherapy
as used by oncologists?
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology
addresses exactly this question. This meta-analysis, entitled "The
Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult
Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual
benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the
commonest types of cancer.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate
Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore
Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at
University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author,
Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the
Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool
Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic
Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and
Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the
suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national
Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) roughly the equivalent of
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all
the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia
and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year
survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival
data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US
National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results
(SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004.
Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side
of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy.
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just
over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
Yet, despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy' s lack of
effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present
chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.
"Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy
will significantly improve cancer survival," the authors wrote in their
introduction. "However, despite the use of new and expensive single and
combination drugs to improve response rates...there has been little
impact from the use of newer regimens" (Morgan 2005).
The Australian authors continued: "...in lung cancer, the median
survival has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.]
and an overall survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved
in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers."
Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to
5-year survival in adults was:
2.3 percent in Australia
2.1 percent in the USA.
They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these
figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e.,
they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).
A FURTHER SIGNIFICANT STUDY
Another cancer researcher obtained similar results about 25 years ago,
back in the eighties. A German epidemiologist from the
Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumour Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a
comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical
trial of chemotherapy ever done. To make certain that he had reviewed
everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350
medical centres around the world asking them to send him anything they
had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it
is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than
he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:
Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was
"appalling," only 3%, because there was simply no scientific evidence
available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way
the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers."
SUCCESS OF CHEMOTHERAPY ONLY THREE PERCENT!
In fact, he found similar figures to the Australian oncologists 3%
- yes that is three percent! Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely
can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a
scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of
chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin
to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing
to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence
that it works!
HOW WILL YOU TREAT YOUR CANCER DOCTOR?
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118
doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters
of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for
lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer,
and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose.
Of the 79 respondents, 64 (81%) said they would not consent to be in a
trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight or
74% of the oncologists found all the trials using any type of
chemotherapy unacceptable. What reasons did they give? Basically, they
quoted the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree
of toxicity.
Best wishes,
Dr. George J Georgiou, Ph.D.,ND.,D. Sc (AM)
Holistic Medicine Practitioner & Researcher
Director, DaVinci Natural Health Center
Panayia Aimatousa 300, Larnaca 7101, Cyprus
Tel: +357 24-823322
Fax: +357 24-823321
Web: www.naturaltherapyc enter.com <https://www.naturalt herapycenter. com/>
Web: www.detoxmetals. com <https://www.detoxmet als.com/>
Email: drgeorge@detoxmetal s.com