Modern Cancer Treatment and Its Limitations

In many parts of the Western world, due to European directives and federal law, the only legally accepted cancer treatment protocols involve surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

“Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick?”  – L.F Kebler, M.D.

Does this mean that these are the only ways of treating cancer?  No.  But to offer anything else, your Doctor would risk losing their medical license, substantial fines and in the US, even a prison sentence.

In the late 1970s, after studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organisations whose survival depended on the state of no cure.

They wrote, “a solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities and cut off funding from Congress, it would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested. Such fear, however unconscious, may result in resistance and hostility to alternative approaches in proportion as they are therapeutically promising. The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all. As we shall see, this pattern has in actuality occurred repeatedly, and almost consistently.”

Indeed, many people around the world consider that they have been “cured” by therapies which have been “blacklisted” by the major cancer institutions and the medical community at large.

The individual Doctors are not necessarily to blame, but the system has overridden good conscience and common sense.

According to Dr Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, M.D, “we, as doctors, are really 007 agents of the pharmaceutical industry.  We are totally blind and ignorant that the pharmaceutical industry has hijacked medicine.  We learn a couple of years of physiology, but as soon as we go on the clinical side we are asked to forget those and begin to learn pharmacology, in order to treat symptoms rather than understand the primary cause of the health problem”.

This view is apparently shared by many Doctors, including Lorraine Day MD (former Chief Orthopaedic Surgeon, San Francisco hospital), but they are powerless to change the system.  She explained, “we doctors are taught in our medical training that virtually 80% of disease has no known cause.  We are not taught to treat the underlying cause of disease, we are only taught to treat the symptoms.  This does not get a person well!”

Dr Fritz Schellander explained that “Every now and again there are new drugs introduced. There is a great stir – but actually it only adds a matter of weeks or months to life expectancy.  Until recently there hasn’t been a single study that could conclusively show that radiotherapy to the breast has any effect on survival and yet we apply it almost routinely to often very young patients.  Many patients would not choose chemotherapy and radiotherapy if they knew the real facts, the real scientific evidence.  A study has been reported which claims that nearly 70% of oncologists would not opt for chemotherapy, if their turn came.”

Part of the way the stranglehold has been maintained is the way in which the success rate of mainstream treatments are reported.  The significant difference is between relative success rates and absolute success rates.

Firstly, let me define success rate.

In the cancer research industry, the closest thing you get to a “cure” is a five-year survival.  So if you survive five years and a day, you were a “success”.

Cancer is the only disease where you can die of the condition you were “successfully” treated for.  It sounds ludicrous, but this has enabled the cancer industry to massage statistics.

In the same vein, early detection has increased so-called survival rates, because by detecting the disease earlier, it isn’t necessarily that the patient will live longer overall, but they are more likely to survive five years from diagnosis.

What many people do not realise, is that their tumour may have taken as long as 10 years to develop to the extent where it was noticeable.

Therefore, much of the improvements in success rate of cancer treatment is down to the way the statistics are handled, as opposed to the actual effectiveness of the treatment.

The difference between relative success rates and absolute success rates is even more important.

Imagine you had a cancer treatment, where 2 more people out of every 100 people would survive five years after receiving it (as opposed to no treatment at all).  If you now develop a new cancer treatment, such as a different variation of chemotherapy, if it now saves 3 additional people out of every 100, it has a relative success rate of 50%.  This is because it “cures” 50% more people than the previous methodology.

However, if you were to express the data as an absolute success rate, you would say that the absolute success rate of that treatment was 3%.  i.e. 3 out of every 100 people.

Just to clarify, that does not mean only 3% of the people survive, it means that 3% MORE people survive than if offered no treatment at all.

Look how much easier it is to justify putting somebody through chemotherapy and radiotherapy when you can talk about a 50% relative success rate, rather than a 3% absolute success rate of the treatment.

A study of every randomised controlled clinical trial of chemotherapy performed in the US, (from 1990 to 2004), was conducted and published under the title “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies”.  The results showed the following cancer “cure” statistics attributable to chemotherapy – based upon absolute success rates:

Pancreas    0%
Soft Tissue Sarcoma    0%
Melanoma    0%
Uterus    0%
Prostate    0%
Bladder    0%
Kidney    0%
Unknown Primary Site    0%
Multiple Myeloma    0%
Stomach    0.7%
Colon    1%
Breast    1.4%
Head and neck    1.9%
Lung    2%
Rectum    3.4%
Brain    3.7%
Oesophagus    4.9%
Ovary    8.9%
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma    10.5%
Cervix    12%
Testes    37.7%
Hodgkin’s Disease    40.3%

Testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, which both appear to be quite responsive to chemotherapy, only represent 2% of the total number of cancers.

When you strip away the relative success rates, modern chemotherapy, (which can destroy your immune system, and rob you of your quality of life without giving you any more time), leaves a lot to be desired.

“In oncology we have the problem that progress has been very, very slow and we are still living with the paradox of treating cancers with carcinogenic agents!  This feels completely wrong to me!”  – Dr Fritz Schellander

The overall average was a 2.1% improvement in five-year survival rate compared with not using chemotherapy at all.  The same process, when applied to Australian data resulted in a 2.4% improvement in five-year survival rate.

Again, just to clarify, it didn’t mean that only 2.1% of Americans survived cancer, it just meant that chemotherapy only contributed to an additional 2.1% people having a five-year survival rate.

It is no wonder that the American Cancer Society stated “Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy seldom produce a cure” in their “Cancer facts and figures 2007” literature.

So 2.1% more of the US patients survived for 5 years when given chemotherapy.  But for the 97.9% of patients who did not get an increase in five-year survival rate, let us look at the price they paid for the attempt – the side effects of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy include:

Abnormal ECG’s, Abdominal Cramps, Anemia, Arterial Damage, Bleeding Sores, Bleeding Ulcers, Blood Clotting, Bone Marrow Suppression, Brain Shrinking, Chromosomal Lesions, Chronic Radiation Proctitis, Constipation, Cumulative Toxicity, Cystitis, Deafness, Decreased White Cell Count, Dehydration [severe], Destroys linings of intestines, Destroys Mucous Membranes, Destroys Skin, Diarrhea [severe], Difficulty Absorbing Food, Dizziness, Endometriosis, Flu Symptoms, Gastrointestinal Bleeding, Hair Loss, Heart Disease, Hematological Problems, Hyper Sensitivity Reactions, Hypertension, Immune System Damage, Impaired Concentration, Impaired Eye Sight, Impaired Hearing, Impaired Language Skills, Impaired Memory, Impotence, Increased Infections, Joint Pain, Kidney Damage, Leucopenia, Liver Fibrosis, Liver Lesions, Loss of Appetite, Loss of Libido, Loss of Nerve Function, Loss of Taste, Lung Damage, Lymph edema, Malnutrition, Nausea, Necrosis, Neurological Damage, Neuropathy, Neutropenia, Nerve Damage, Numbness, Oral Ulcers, Permanent Disabilities, Psychological Distress, Radiation Burns, Radiation poisoning, Renal Dysfunction, Sexual Dysfunction, Soreness of Gums and Throat, Sterility, Stroke, Sudden Menopause, Suicide, Ulceration, Urinary Bleeding, Vascular Damage, Vomiting [severe], Weakness, Weight Loss, and TOXIC DEATH!

Was it really worth it?  Especially when you look at Doctors such as Dr Joseph Issels in Germany, who was able to get a 24% success rate from over 16,000 cases over a 40 year period using alternative therapies, even after chemotherapy and radiotherapy had done their damage.

Or a 22% 5-year success rate for “incurable” forms of brain cancer achieved by Dr Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. in Texas, using his revolutionary Antineoplastons treatment.

Diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma had never before been cured in any scientifically controlled clinical trial in the history of medicine.  Now, Dr Burzynski has “cured” dozens of  patients as part of his FDA approved clinical trials – trials using treatment methods outside of the mainstream Western cancer treatment protocols.  This is after the FDA spent 10 years and $60 million of tax payer’s money trying to shut him down!

As I mentioned in the introduction of my book, Cancer Uncensored, I pull no punches.  This data is shocking and will feel contradictory to what we have been spoon-fed by the Cancer research organisations who are forever pushing the “cancer cure just around the corner” mentality, even whilst they throw more money at methodologies that have not improved survival rates for decades.

How on earth have the medical and cancer research communities been able to keep the fact that chemotherapy barely works under wraps?

Is a 2.1% improvement worth hundreds of billions of dollars in cancer research conducted over decades, when 85% of cancer is preventable in the first place?  If we had focused on prevention all those years ago, most of the cancer patients today would never be in the position to even need treatment.

In a recent patent application by the US government, (when they attempted to patent Dr Burzynski’s antineoplastons – which were already patented!), the US government even admitted, “Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease.”

In a German study of elderly breast cancer patients (80 years old and older), where half received treatment involving chemotherapy and the other half received no treatment at all, the untreated group lived an average of 11 months longer.

An article on says it all…

“Cancer drugs, pushed by many drug companies as the only ‘scientific’ method of combating cancer alongside chemotherapy, have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly. The findings come after research was conducted on the cancer drugs at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.  Sold at a premium price to cancer sufferers, it turns out these drugs are not only ineffective but highly dangerous.

Something known as anti-angiogenesis is the primary function behind many such widely-used cancer drugs that were analyzed in the study.  Researchers examined drugs such as imatanib (a leukemia drug that goes by the brand name Gleevec) and sunitinib (a drug for gastrointestinal tumors — brand name Sutent), finding that these drugs may initially reduce tumor size but afterwards cause tumors to ‘metastasize’ aggressively. This means that the tumors come back much stronger and grow much larger than their original size.

As a result, patients develop life-threatening tumors that oftentimes kill patients more quickly as a result of taking the drug.

When study researchers induced anti-angiogenesis in mice, there was an initial 30% decrease in the volume of the tumor over 25 days. Afterwards, however, the tumors that had metastasized to the lungs tripled.  Researchers published the findings in the January 17 issue of Cancer Cell, with study authors shocked by the findings.

“Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumors can inadvertently do something to increase the tumor numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day,” said study author Dr. Raghu Kalluri.

It is clear that these cancer drugs are virtually ineffective at treating cancer, even killing patients who may have otherwise survived.  Of course a number of natural anti-cancer substances do exist that have been found to be largely effective in reducing tumor size and most importantly combating the onset of cancer.  Perhaps the most amazing anti-cancer substance for your health is high quality turmeric.  Turmeric has been found to reduce tumors by an astounding 81% in recent cancer research.  And contrary to cancer drugs, turmeric does not come loaded with deadly side effects.

Quite the opposite, turmeric instead comes with beneficial properties that can prevent your risk of disease and positively affect over 560 conditions.

Vitamin D is another essential anti-cancer nutrient.  Amazingly, vitamin D is much more effective than pharmaceutical drugs at fighting cancer, and is virtually a free nutrient.  Instead of paying a premium price for deadly cancer drugs, your vitamin D levels can be significantly improved by soaking up some sunlight.  It is important to receive a blood test to ensure you are within the optimal vitamin D level range.  The correct test you should receive is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  The optimal range is 50-70 ng/ml, though if you are fighting cancer or heart disease it is 70-100 ng/ml.”

In a further article, published on, it was highlighted that chemotherapy can make cancer far worse, due to its damaging effects on healthy surrounding tissues…

“A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient, accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery.  While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth.  Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’.  Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy for years as the only option available to cancer patients.

The news comes after it was previously revealed by similarly breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse.  The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metastasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption.  As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly.

Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”

The team then complemented the statement with a word of their own:

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer.  In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether.  One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric.

This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe.  The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit.  If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet, cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.”

It makes grim reading when you know that the main institutions take decades to change their strategies.

But it would be entirely irresponsible of me to recommend, or dissuade you from engaging in any particular course of treatment.  It is between you and your doctor to decide what is appropriate for you, but I would ask you to question your doctor about the absolute success rate of his or her proposed course of treatment, and whether it is wise to engage in a treatment that deteriorates, if not destroys, your immune system and quality of life.

If your Doctor cannot give you accurate absolute statistics, or will not support your choices, perhaps you should find a different Doctor?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments