Blogging against alternative cancer treatments
No, it’s not true: currently, the average cancer cure rate is close to 60%.
Some time ago I happened to read a discussion on Tony Isaacs’s Curezone, on the best treatment for breast cancer. The thread was started by a woman who had just been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Tony Isaacs’ partner Luella May suggested the forum member paint her breasts with iodine to combat the cancer and advised strongly against surgery and all other forms of conventional cancer treatments:
What does this mean? I can only mean that 98% were not cured – which means they died; look at this website, where it says: Chemo has a 97% fatality rate!
Some time later I read the same kind of unsettling statement concerning chemotherapy, this time posted on a discussion board of Breastcancer.org:
The “2% chemo efficacy” comes from an Australian study into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year cancer survival, and the researchers claimed to have found that the average benefit of chemotherapy was about 2%. So: the study is about the contribution of chemotherapy to survival and not about survival of patients having chemotherapy.
For obvious reasons, this study has become immensely popular with alternative therapists and is quoted by them ad nauseam.
A rather strange phenomenon took place after the publication of this study: over time, the 2-3% contribution to survival had somehow become 2-3% plain survival – period. Some of these altmeds now actually claim the outcome of the study was that of all cancer patients receiving chemo, only 2-3% survive for more than 5 years.
In other words: chemotherapy kills an average 97% of cancer patients within 5 years.
Now, as these numbers sound totally weird – to say the least – we decided to find out if there was any truth in them.
The researchers stated as the aim of their study:
a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies.
So they wanted to know what the contribution was of chemotherapy to 5-year survival. There are many therapies to treat cancer: surgery, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, immune therapy – and chemotherapy. The researchers wanted to know to what extent chemotherapy contributed to five-year-survival of cancer patients.
Of all 154,971 patients whose files were examined, in 3306 of these, 5-year survival could be attributed solely to chemotherapy.
In 98% of the patients, 5-year survival was due to a combination of factors, of which chemotherapy sometimes also was a factor and sometimes was not.
The researchers then extrapolated the outcomes to all cancers. The average 5-year cancer survival in Australia at the time of the study was 60%. On the basis of the extrapolation of the outcome of their study, the researchers estimated that the average contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival would be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
Nowhere in the study does it say that only 3306 patients survived their chemotherapy and that consequently 151,665 patients died because of chemotherapy.
Leave out a few words and you get a completely different message.
The study was carried out in 2004, using data from 1998. A number of things can be said about the design of the study.
Correction for these factors would result in an average contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival of about 8%, based on the data from 1998.
It is important to keep in mind that a statistical average is always about middling, about the ‘mean.’ Statistics are never about the many deviations from the mean, such as your or anyone else’s specific situation.
A few examples:
1. Suppose the effect of chemotherapy on 5-year survival in leukemia is 60% and the effect of chemotherapy on 5-year survival of very early stage breastcancer is 0% (because: not indicated, therefore not administered). The average effect of chemotherapy on both cancers combined is 30% (60+0 : 2 = 30). But what does this overall average tell the individual patient regarding their prognosis? Well… nothing actually.
2. In a number of situations, depending on stage, grade and type of cancer, women with breast cancer are advised to take adjuvant chemotherapy, in order to destroy any (clinically invisible) micrometastases in their blood.
This kind of chemo improves the 10-year survival prognosis with an average 5 – 7%. The percentage is based on all women receiving adjavant chemo. If you don’t have micrometastases, the chemo will do nothing for your prognosis. However, for the women who do have them, the chemo may enhance their personal prognosis much more, sometimes as high as 20%.
3. Cancer with unknown primary tumour (CUP) has a very bad prognosis: average 5-year overall survival rate is about 10%. Yet there are cases known of patients who have been surviving for 14 years or more without any evidence of disease.
The big differences in the overall effects of chemotherapy on 5-year survival become obvious if we look at the tables in which the specific numbers are given for each particular cancer that was included in the study. In the 4th and 3rd column on the right you can see to what extent chemotherapy contributed to cancer survival. When chemotherapy was no factor in survival, the column shows a dash.
The data from the study are from 1998. We are now in 2009 and progress has been made in those years. There is better medication to diminish side effects of chemotherapy. There is new, sophisticated technology to assess which breast cancers are prone to metastasize and which are not, resulting in less women having to undergo chemotherapy. Scientists are working hard on similar tests for other cancers.
There are over 80 different kinds of chemotherapy. Some are sheer hell, but many are quite doable, including the one I had. Nevertheless: chemotherapy still is the ultimate cancer scare factor and the sooner we can do without it, the better. But it is not true that only 2-3% survive chemotherapy. It is not true that the average benefit of chemotherapy to 5-year survival is as low as 2%. And it is also not true that all chemotherapy is by definition completely and totally unbearable.
If we really want to get anywhere at all, then honesty about the facts, not manipulation, self-aggrandizing and scare mongering, should be the basis for discussion and decision making.
Psiram/Esowatch Science-Based Medicine
So, slight tangent here… did you know that recently Luella was treated for days at a **gasp** HOSPITAL by **horrors** DOCTORS and that evil ‘western medicine’ ?? She says she has been self-treating for years with those ‘natural’,'healing’, and ‘preventative’ supplements peddled by that site…
Bad batch of oleander soup? Generic colloidal silver instead of the name-brand? Not enough iodine body paint? Didn’t add enough herbs and spices to her enemas?
The hypocrisy burns ever so brightly.
I have a dream that one day……..
Of course it’s not true. Other sources talk about 10-15%.
The article of radiologist Graeme Morgan is often cited by Ryke Geerd Hamer and his entourage, with exactly the same outrageous false statement. Morgan would certainly never underwrite that, as he he says clearly: ” So in other words if there was no chemotherapy in Australia, the survival of all patients with cancer would drop from 62% to 60%”. Another person speaking often about this article is Ralph W. Moss (PhD in classic literature, see: http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Ralph_W._Moss ), even though being a New-Medicine critic and calling Hamer “antisemitic, paranoid and mentally deranged”. Morgan’s old (6 years are a lot in medicine) article was cited by scientific articles only two times (one citation by Morgan himself in 2005). And the article earned a critic resonance. See M. Boyer und Eva Segelov: http://www.australianprescriber.com/upload/pdf/articles/759.pdf. A very interesting talk at ABC radio (in Australia) was deleted meanwhile from the ABC-server unfortunately. A critic analysis was performed in 2005 by L. Mileshkin, D. Rischin, H.M. Prince and J. Zalcberg. The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to the Management of Cancer. Clinical Oncology. Volume 17, Issue 4, June 2005, page 294. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2005.02.012. The full text can be seen here, reading reference number 43 in this german article:
http://esowatch.com/ge/index.php?title=Germanische_Neue_Medizin#cite_note-42
Thanks very much for your comment, I’m sorry to say that somehow it got stuck in the spam filter. I have adjusted some blog settings, so there shouldn’t be any problems in the future!
People do your own research and do not be deceived by drug therapists (that is what MDs are) who essentially work for the pharmaceutical industry. By the way, most studies are not valid because the “placebo effect” can never be eliminated, unless the subjects are unaware of the experiment. In fact, Dr. Kirch reviewed studies of the most common anti-depressants and found that it was 70% placebo effect. The subjects believed it helped.
It is ridiculous to site ONE Austrailian study while there are hundreds of studies that demonstrate the poor success rate of chemotherapy, in addition to common, or better yet, good sense. I took medical histories for 25 years and witnessed the devastation these toxic drugs caused in my patients. I always found that the people who regained their health had made significant changes in their lives– their diets, marriage, work, boss, finances, and often sought “alternative” healing modalities. When did natural healing become unnatural (allopathic) and “alternative”? Chemo”therapy” is an oxymoron. A more accurate term would be chemocide. This type of “health care” is bankrupting our country. Should the debate really be focused on who will pay for it or on if we can afford it any longer, especially compared to the low cost of natural remedies? Why has medical insurance become so vital? And yet, one half of all bankrupties in the US are due to medical bills. Can we change the prevailing paradigm of “fighting disease” and treating symptoms– you don’t get sick because your body lacks a drug! There has to be a “natural” cause for the ailment or self-correction. Let us concentrate on HEALING, not attacking.
I am in the process of healing a breast tumor that was caused by an emotional shock conflict with my mother. I am not in the least bit concerned and it is healing nicely. No additional diagnosis shock, no outrageous expenses, “battling the disease” nor becoming a “survivor” of that Allopathic war. I am trusting that my body know exaxtly how to heal itself and I am “allowing” that healing to take place and supporting it in the most natural way possible (vitamin D and E supplements, and energy, for starters). Thank God for Dr. Hamer and the German New Medicine! I’m not optimistic for it’s acceptance as it is inexpensive and requires therapists to examine the emotional life of the patient, which may be too time consuming and personal for doctors to do. Far easier and more profitable to write a presciption, and then treat the eventual side effects of the drugs, many of which you can see listed on the commercials (almost a parody of itself). The huge rise in breast cancer correlates to the enormous increase in “nest” worry shock conflicts as modern women are separated from their homes and family (partners with the high divorce rates and sharing children), which could be historically and biologically considered unnatural. Can they really do it all? In addition, there is the diagnosis shock from a mammogram, which are more prevelant, and “early detection.”
I hope this author discovers the shock conflict underlying her cancer so she can fully resolve the emotional upset so the cancer does not reoccur (come out of “remission”).
By the way, “people are living longer” (the bench mark for the success of modern medicine) because life is easier. However, with the amount of drugs elderly people tend to consume, the quality of life may not equal the quantity of life. And they often suffer from isolation, warehousing, humiliating diseases and prolonged expirations. My humble advice: become your own therapists and be aware of what you are feeling and when you’ve had a shock. Don’t fight disease. Allow healing, avoid attacking, love, and trust in your body to heal itself. God bless.
Meanwhile, check this out:
http://www.smashcancer.com/2010/08/13/cancer-survival-rates-truth-vs-fiction/
@ Carla Muth,
Honestly, I am completely flabbergasted by your ignorance. Have you even read the article you are referring to in your comment?
We have taken great pains to show that the study is not about death by chemotherapy, as is often suggested by alternative “healers”, but about the contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival rates and here you go, referring us to a site that repeats the same old stupid lies all over again (my bold):
How in the world can you presume yourself at all qualified to give advice to cancer patients, when your understanding of scientific information is so obviously absent?
Beatis,
I noticed that you didn’t comment on any of the other information in my remarks. Are you in the medical field? Have you repeatedly witnessed the obscene expense and toxic effects of chemotherapy? The “treatment” is truly worse than the cure, oops, I mean “remission” since medicine can’t cure it. What does this have to do with healing, massively assualting the body? Do you not think that the body knows exactly how to heal itself? Do you really think people have cancer (or hypertension, diabetes, etc.) because they are lacking a drug? This notion is not only poor science, but faulty logic. There has to be a natural cause for a disease, notwithstanding the 80,000 chemicals in our food and environment, and therefore, a natural cure.
“Science” does not know the cause of cancer, but they are sure of the treatment, and that the German New Medicine is wrong. It’s originator (from his experience with testicular cancer in the tragic wake of his son’s death), Dr. Hamer, views every symptom in the body as in some way positive as the body is biologically programmed to gravitate towards healing. I have never talked to a person who did not have an emotional shock conflict underlying their disease. We are often unaware of how deeply affected we are by emotional upsets and usually “get on with it” without resolving the conflict.
Evidentaly, you are steeped in the Marcus Welby, MD era and not the modern world of corporate medicine, i.e, Big Pharma. Without insurance, I estimate that perhaps only 20% of the population could afford mainstream medical treatment– and the drugs. Meanwhile, people continue to get sicker.
Anyhow, I’m responding because I just read another article on the dismal success rate of chemotherapy although that was not its focus. You could read one practically every day on the internet. I don’t know how you miss them?
The comments are worth reading.
From USA Today: “$93,000 cancer drug”…..”new cancer-fighting drugs have been topping $5,000 a month. Only a few of these keep cancer in remission so long that they are, in effect, cures. For most people, the drugs may buy a few months or years. “…….”Revlimid pill for multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, can run as much as $10,000 a month.”……”Gleevec, a $4,500-a-month drug by Novartis AG that keeps certain leukemias and stomach cancers in remission [but not cured?]. “….. “she tried cutting back on Gleevec and her cancer recurred.”…….”whether the extra 11 weeks that Genentech’s Herceptin buys for stomach cancer justified the $21,500 cost.”……”The $4,000-a-month drug won approval by boosting median survival by a mere 12 days. Here’s how to think about this cost: People who added Tarceva to standard chemotherapy lived nearly 6 1/2 months, versus 6 months for those on chemo alone. So the Tarceva folks spent more than $24,000 to get those extra 12 days.”…..”if people lose coverage, they often discover they can’t afford their medicines,”…… ENDING WITH: “It’s no longer a fringe science. This is working,” [at least for "four months"! Honestly!] he said [presumedly with a straight face]. “We need to get it in the door so we can evolve it.” [shouldn't it be evolved before it goes out of the door?]. Really, is that scientific? Experimenting on the public?
http://www.ehealing.us/article_costly_medicine.html
And if you dare: “Scientific Medicine?”
http://www.ehealing.us/article_scientific_medicine.html
And if you you dare, Ms Muth, to provide us with reliable statistics on the successes of Hamer’s GNM, or any other alternative cancer therapy, then please do so!
Or is ranting against conventional medicine all you have to offer?
BTW, I fail to see what’s the point of bringing up the American health insurance system. This has nothing to do with treatments being effective or not.
Some of his claims are actually testable. Take for instance the claim that lung cancer is caused by some kind of shock that led to hyperventilation. According to Hamer this leads to a reaction where the body tries to compensate by forming more lung tissue, thus facilitating breathing. In other words a lung cancer is a lump that increases the amount of air that a lung can hold – not decrease it. Now here is your challenge: Go find photos of lung cancers, and check out for your self if lung cancer increases or decreases the amount of air that the lung + the cancer can hold. And be sure to convince yourself that lung cancers also looked like that before Hamer launched his idea.
Okay. All you have to do now is to find out if people who haven’t had cancer didn’t have emotional shock conflicts long time ago either.
Hi! Thank you for clearing this out. I was quite confused about this. I was able to read many articles that says only 2% can survive from chemotherapy. This really made me worried because I know someone who is going through chemotherapy colon. I’m very glad that I came across your site. This could enlighten many people, like me, who are very confused about this. Thank you very much! I would love to read more of your interesting articles. I’ll just help myself and browse around your blog. I believe I’ll find some other interesting articles from you too. I hope you won’t hesitate on updating your blog! Thank you very much!
Even though this post is a couple of years old, it is still very helpful!
My dad recently had prostate cancer and decided not to have surgery. So we studied all we could about Hamer’s medicine. I’m glad to say he is cured now, with recent blood tests showing he has no traces of the cancer at all.
However, I always found that number troubling, everyone talking about the 2 to 3% survival rate, never quoting sources or anything. So, thanks, Finally I understand where those numbers come from, and why they seem like a gross understatement or misunderstanding.
Now, before my father had anything to do with oncologists, I would have sworn that was the answer, but after reading, watching and living through cancer, I’m not that sure anymore. I believe it is something to be researched, developed. When you analyze it, Hamer’s NGM can coexist (albeit with a few changes) with the farmaceutical Industry. And sometimes you just don’t have the time to spend on healing your body, you just have to function.
Paradigm shifts are never without conflict.
RESULTS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849):
“The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”
Indeed this does not mean that Chemo has a 97% fatality rate (although many patients do die of chemo induced ‘complications’ – due to the the toxicity of this poisonous ‘medicine’ – to blood, liver, lungs, kidneys, etc., but let’s not get into this now). It ‘only’ means that for an adult cancer patient, suffering from so called ‘solid tumor’ cancers (lung, liver, kidney, breast, prostate, pancreas cancer, etc.) the overall benefit of getting chemotherapy is just a little bit higher than 2 %…
If you think that ‘s worth the risk and suffering, go for it.
http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/problem-with-alternative-cancer-treatments/
Our Problem with Alternative Cancer Treatments
quote:
Ronald,
We have asked you countless times to show us the evidence that Hamer’s GNM cures cancer, but it seems all you can do to prove your point is rant against standard cancer medicine, which only shows you have no meaningful statements to support your claims.
So once more: show us one verifiable, proven case of a cancer patient who has been clinically disease free for at least 5 years due to Germanic New Medicine only – or shut up. Note that I’m being very lenient here, I don’t ask you to show us that GNM performs better than standard medicine, I just ask for one cured patient – just one.
Okay Ronald. You found the post. Now try and read the post. And pay special attention when you get to the paragraph on “The study design”.
Well, if I ever saw a poor reply from you guys, it must be this one.
Beatis, you are trying to convince people that ‘alternative cancer treatments’ are dangerous because they lure people away from conventional (what you call proven) therapies, like, one of the major ‘weapons’ of ‘modern medicine’, chemotherapy.
Then, when somebody shows you that chemotherapy is hardly worth the suffering and the risk of getting poisoned you get all upset. Strange reaction, to say the least.
And ‘jli’, those papers I’ve sent to Beatis, which you call fake (the papers, I mean, otherwise I feel inclined to agree with you
came straight from the computer of our family doctor, a professor in Leuven (Belgium) and the doctor/radiologist who performed the last ultrasounds before we left the conventional realm altogether. All I did was first type ‘m out to post the text on this site, because Beatis asked for the original documents. So I scanned them in and sent them to her. Tell you one thing, on those papers there are alot of names of Belgian doctors/oncologists/radiologists. If you contact them and they state that those papers (scans) were in any way tricked by me (except for making our names/address unreadable) I will never post another comment regarding cancer here or anywhere else from that moment on. Really hope you accept the challenge, mister know it all, but I’m sure you’re gonna tell me that it’s up to me to prove that they are not false (well, actually, it’s usually Beatis who uses that tactic – what you all have in common is the line “did you actually read this study/text/article???”).
Ronald:
One’s doctor is never allowed to discus private matters from patients with strangers/outsiders.
So you require bullshit!
The obession of alternologists with chemotherapy mystifies me. Chemotherapy is only one element of cancer medicine and in most cases it isn’t the primary treatment, which is surgery.
And just to remind you: you still haven’t delivered any evidence for the effectiveness of Hamer’s GNM. Your suggestion that I should call the doctors mentioned in the papers you sent to find out they haven’t been tricked with, is beyond preposterous. So, for the last time: show us one verifiable, proven case of a cancer patient who has been clinically disease free for at least 5 years due to Germanic New Medicine only – or shut up.
As usual, this is leading nowhere….
Would love to stay (oops, another lie), but what’s the point… I really have better things to do than fighting a group of biased servents of a billion dollar industry.
Should have known that you had no intention of following the good suggestion. As a special service I’ll give you some highlights:
- No differentiation was made between cancers treated primarily with chemotherapy or with chemotherapy given as an adjuvant treatment.
- No differentiation between use in early stage cancer and late stage incurable cancer.
- Leukaemia (good responsiveness to chemotherapy) was not among the cancer types looked into.
I never said that the “pathology report” was a fake.I said it wasn’t a pathology report. If a professor told you it was a pathology report he doesn’t deserve the respect you have for him.
No offense but you’re an idiot, beatis.
Calling me an idiot is offensive. From now on your comments will be held in moderation.
hello in hungary only among my friends i can show you 6 people
who had cancer,ovaroan,breast,prostate leukemia,colon and lung cancer
they learned about GNM,refused chemo and the rest they were cursed out by screaming
doctors and called ugly names,now they are checked and negative.the not funny thing
is that after they were checked cancer free doctors almost kicked them out not asking
a single question how it happened…anyways its really easy to check whether GNM is a
hoax or not because a trained GNM consultant can tell what the patient has or had just by looking
at the brain scan….i know that this whole topic stirs a lot of emotion but we have to have an open mind to observe study new aspects and not brush them off the table…thanks
Good, show them!
ok how we do it?what would be a proof for you? names email adresses?
skype? these are just people i personally know,there are over 300 doctors
who have been trained by GNM some of them i know well,they know even more
cases in their practice so i suggest that if you genuinely open and interested
come and visit us in hungary i will personally introduce you to them.we have
medical reports,diagnosis all the papers proving that.
Beatis, please tell us why you will only consider statistics and not anecdotal evidence when assessing the validity and efficacy of cancer treatments, both allopathic and alternative? My mother is living proof that alternative methods DO work and obviously judging by YOUR comment section to this article, many others have been healed using non-conventional treatments, My mother was diagnosed three years ago with advanced stage breast cancer and refused ALL chemo, surgery and radiation treatments. She has mostly followed Gerson therapy with me and my sister’s help, using intuition and common sense to boot! She is thriving and a recent scan has indicated that all the tumors have either disappeared or are shrinking. Does it even matter if it’s the herbs, the Gerson therapy, exercise, diet changes, stress alleviation, or plain old HOPE that is at work? The bottom line is that people can avoid the risks of chemocide and other dangerous therapies with alternative approaches. Oh yeah, that’s right, we don’t have any statistics to support these so-called quack methods. The thugs running the AMA and Big Pharma hold a lot of control over the public mind. Give us a break Beatis, we just want to heal, not hear your “scientific” dogma. And let me just say that alternative methods are not necessarily easier, especially when someone has to still work a full-time job like my mom and none of my family is rich at all. I’m sure there are people who even thrive combining conventional AND alternative methods. People should be free to do what they want to do, but why do you seem to be on such a campaign to DISCOUNT any alternative methods? Who’s funding your efforts?
Because anecdotes cannot be checked and provide no reliable information as to what works and doesn’t work against cancer – of which your own anecdote is the umpteenth example.
Ofcourse it matters. Should cancer patients in your opinion just try anything at random and see what happens? Don’t you think they would benefit by knowing what works and what doesn’t?
Because they have never been shown to be in the least effective.
@beatis~
First of all…you are very rude to any guest commentators here on your blog! To constantly say “Shut up” is very childish and only serves to discredit you! I have been diagnosed with Breast cancer stage 2 and plan on starting Gerson Therapy along with lipospherical vitamin c among many other things that i will not bore you with. First of all, the phama companies and FDA CAN afford to fund…AND manipulate the studies to suit their needs….they will be hugely reimbursed by the huge profits from drugs/chemo to treat each of their patients, you being one. Alternative therapies DO NOT have the huge amount of money to fund studies and have them published! AND, if they did do all of this to prove to someone like yourself, they would be blackballed and probably be discredited and not published at all. Dr. Gonzalez here in NYC has a very huge track record of curing cancer alternatively and the FDA has been working overtime to discredit him…same with Dr. Buzynski in Texas! They have no reason to prove themselves….I will be another one for their proof of success as I will be declining chemo, surgery and radiation. I hope you live a long and happy life….but, best to check yourself and your attitude! Best wishes to all of us!
Both Dr. Burzynski and Dr. Gonzalez have a very dismal success rate when it comes to curing cancer. Dr. Burzynski has been doing trials for years now, over 30 years I believe, but has not published any results. None. Zero. Why would that be? If his treatment is so successful, then why doesn’t he publish his results?? You try to make us believe mainstream oncologists only want to make lots of money by prescribing as much chemotherapy as possible, and present Burzynski as an admirable example of the opposite, which again shows you have not done your homework properly.
As for Dr. Gonzalez, he hasn’t cured any cancer patient, his track record is even more dismal than Burzynski’s, for Burzynski often also uses standard cancer medication. The studies of Dr. Gonzalez show that his patients fare much worse than patients treated conventionally. His treatment doesn’t do anything for cancer, causes his patients to die sooner and makes them feel like hell to boot.
More on Burzynski’s cancer treatments here. Breast cancer surgeon David Gorski has written extensively on Burzynski and on Gonzalez as well.
If you really have stage II breast cancer, I would strongly advise you to start standard treatment as soon as possible. Prognosis for stage II breast cancer can still be quite good, but trying to cure breast cancer with alternative treatments only is the most dangerous thing anyone can do.
@Joellelee
I can’t help worrying about your decision to decline all standard treatments for your breast cancer. Please reconsider and pluck up your courage! Surely you want to live?
No they won’t. My oncologist receives a fixed salary from the research hospital where he works and no bonuses for describing chemotherapy. His wife had chemotherapy too, for her breast cancer. Am I to believe that doctors knowingly poison their loved ones, only to make some more money?? You can’t be serious!
Your cancer is stage II, which still gives you a good chance of survival, but only if you start treatment soon. The longer you wait, the more you ruin your chances of survival. Chemotherapy is not as bad as alternative therapists are telling you. I’ve done it myself and I’d do it again in a heartbeat if I had to.
In case you should be interested: here’s more information on cancer patients who chose to forgo standard treatments.
i know 3 woman just around me who had been diagnosed with breast cancer
and after learning about the discoveries of german new medicine decided not
to do surgery,radiaton,chemo.the had been told be the dostors to die a painful death
and they are irresponsible,crazy and yet they understood the cause of it,solved the real life situation and they still alive symptom free.the intereting thing for me is that when they went back
months later for the checkup,the doctors were confused,unsecure about the fact and hussed the away saying miracle happend.NO FURTHER INTEREST whatsoever.its pathetic but what else one hopes from folks that are financially interested in others folks being kept in dark,in fear,kept sick and desperate…i have seend all the discreditive junk on the web about German New Medicine,i have tried it tested it and have seen it work just exactly how its written.punto
To be honest, I don’t believe one word of what you’re saying.
that is your problem.as i said come and check it out yourself
we have medical reports,brain scans etc…if u have a pre meditated
opinion about certain things nobody will change your mind about it
not my problem,when its your turn ask ur chemo dose fine by me…
@gyula balogh
No you don’t, otherwise you would have published them.
question is if i publish them,will it mean anything to you?
you have a mind as closed as a bunker.not that i want to convince u
or anybody else.whoever come with a true interest,or needing help
i will share anything,but you are none of these.your logic is very primitive
and suggest a simple reptilian lifeform and way of thinking.stay in your bunker mind
and have fun honey….
Beatis, I am NOT saying all the encologists are trying to poison people! I just find them ignorant and very closed minded to any other form of treatment. I finally got my encologist to admit that chemo would not really help my cancer outcome anymore than that 3%… I have done thousands of hours of research on BOTH sides! Tons of studies of how chemo and surgery has little benefit! have you done any reserach at all or just believe big pharna/FDA dogma? I have met many women who have healed their cancers alternatively. Have you ever heard of jessica Ainscough AKA wellnesswarrior.com…both her and her mom being cured on Gerson…Also, well known Kris Carr cured her cancer with diet and supplements, she is the author of Crazy Sexy cancer. If you are only going on what the ACS and FDA is saying about Gonzalez then you are getting a very biased side! I have met numerous patients in my research who went to him and have been healed. You are so closed minded…wake up, please. What a waste of a blog.
Surgery is the primary and most effective part of treatment for solid cancers. In breast cancer, chemotherapy is used as an adjuvant, to enhance prognosis. You can choose not to undergo chemotherapy, but forgoing surgery is really very, very dangerous, it only gives the cancer free reign to grow and metastasize in abundance. And once it has metastasized beyond the lymph nodes, it is generally incurable.
Kris Carr was not cured of cancer, she still has cancer, she calls herself a cancer thriver, not a cancer survivor. Her kind of cancer is extremely slow growing and can remain dormant for years. Hence patients with this kind of cancer are no longer advised chemotherapy but a “wait-and-see” policy, which is exactly what her oncologist advised Ms Carr. If her cancer decides to become nasty – which may never happen – she and her doctors will decide on the best course of action. So she still has cancer, but chances are it will never become lethal. But cured she is not. I also wonder why you should think that your breast cancer is of the same type as Ms Carr’s cancer. For someone having read “tons of studies” you don’t seem very well informed and I find that rather worrying, to say the least.
And as far as I know Jessica Ainscough, who thinks we should eat clay to get rid of toxins and now poses as an authority on breast cancer, still has cancer too.
Nobody is EVER cured of cancer! Even you who has undergone chemo….cancer just runs and hides in hibernation waiting to strike in another form. I never said I had the same cancer as these two ladies Jessica and kris! Everyone is different! I was merely pointing out that a cancer can be put into remission without having to do any chemo! Well, it’s like talking to a wall…I am done here. Off to fill out my application to see the good Dr. Gonzalez! PEACE!
That’s true, but not without surgery.
In an earlier comment I explained to you that surgical removal of the tumour is the main part of the treatment for solid cancers and not chemotherapy. Chemotherapy before surgery is called neoadjuvant as is given to shrink the tumour so that surgery can be less invasive, whereas chemotherapy after surgery is given as an adjuvant to destroy any individual, occult cancer cells that may or may not be left in the body after surgery and thus help prevent recurrence. The fact that it is given for occult metastases accounts for the low overall average percentage by which it enhances women’s prognosis, for a lot of women do not have these micro metastases to begin with, only we have no way of knowing that. In individual cases however, the enhancement of prognosis may be much higher and for women with node positive stage II breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy enhances prognosis by a minimum average of 15 percent. A rule of thumb regarding curable cancers is that the more progressed the cancer, the greater the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.
BTW, you sneeze at the average of 3%, but even “only” 3% means that out of every 100 women, 3 more will survive instead of die, of every 1000, 30 more will live and of every 10,000, 300 more women will live instead of die from their cancer.
Please note that the average survival rate for stage II breast cancers after standard treatment still is about 82% after five years and about 75% after 10 years.
Of untreated breast cancers, 85% of patients have died within 5 years and the ten-year survival rates of untreated breast cancer is no more than 3%.
Of course you have the right to forgo all treatment, including surgery and leave your breast cancer where it is now. But unless you have it removed, it will continue to grow and spread and once it has spread beyond the lymph nodes to the rest of your body, it has become incurable.
You can scream “close-minded” to us all you want, but the facts are that alternative treatments are completely useless when it comes to cancer. It will only cost you a lot of money and make you lose time you that you absolutely cannot afford to lose.
I know you didn’t say that, but you presented them here as proof that people can cure themselves from cancer with alternative treatments only. But the truth is 1) that these ladies both still have cancer and 2) that there is no reason to think that your cancer will be just as indolent as theirs has been until now and 3) that Kim Carr even is – God forbid – under constant surveillance of an oncologist.
You are right that every cancer is different and requires a different approach, that’s why there are more than 80 different kinds of chemotherapy and almost just as many targeted therapies for cancer.
And yes, cancer can be put into remission without chemotherapy, but NOT WITHOUT SURGERY! How on earth can I get that through to you?? Forgoing surgery is the most dangerous thing you can do!
@gyula balogh
We’ll know that as soon as you decide to publish the evidence you claim to have.
I knew you weren’t going to. You’ve been visiting this blog for some years now and all that time you have done nothing else but insult us. I can’t help thinking that’s because GNM is worthless so you have nothing to share and resort to name-calling instead.
Like I said, you only come here to insult us and call us names.
LOL this is totally false… mam, either you are a set up by the pharma industries or you just need to do re search again.
Chemotherapy using Logic- kills you more than it helps you! It kills all good and bad things in your body including your immune system,…! HELLO ! DONT WE NEED THAT TO HELP FIGHT OFF DISEASE AND VIRUS and INFECTIONS etc? especially the side effects we will be getting? WE NEED OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM don’t be dumb now lol…
Using Real Stats: (From Clinical Oncology studies) chemotherapy doesn’t work 97% of the time.
And you may not convince me otherwise… but chemotherapy is worse than cancer itself