Chemo­ther­apy causes Can­cer?

The Miracle - - Front Page - By Scott Stock­dale

De­spite the con­tin­ued use of chemo­ther­apy as the main­stay to treat can­cer pa­tients, re­searchers re­cently in­creased their es­ti­mate of the num­ber of Cana­di­ans who will die from can­cer from two-in-five, to one-in-two. Mean­while, a 14-year study pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Clin­i­cal On­col­ogy in De­cem­ber 2004 called “The Con­tri­bu­tion of Cy­to­toxic Chemo­ther­apy to 5-year Sur­vival in Adult Malig­nan­cies” (Clin­i­cal On­col­ogy (2004) 16: 549e560 doi: 10.1016/ j. clon. 2004.06.007) showed that 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 United States. More­over, sev­eral doc­tors have stated on the record that chemo­ther­apy ac­tu­ally causes more can­cer to de­velop in pa­tients. 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.” More­over, Dr. Allen Levin and Dr. Glen Warner said chemo­ther­apy ac­tu­ally kills the pa­tients be­fore the can­cer does. The late Dr. Glenn Warner (he died in 2000) – one of the most highly qual­i­fied can­cer spe­cial­ists in Amer­i­can - used al­ter­na­tive treat­ments on his can­cer pa­tients with great suc­cess. He said chemo­ther­apy was killing peo­ple for profit. “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. Allen Levin con­curred with Dr. Warner’s con­clu­sion that chemo­ther­apy kills peo­ple. “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,” Dr. Levin said. 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. Dr. Pet­ter Glid­den, a mem­ber of the Amer­i­can As­so­ci­a­tion of Natur­o­pathic Physi­cians and the Illi­nois As­so­ci­a­tion of Natur­o­pathic Physi­cians, who re­ceived his BS de­gree from the Uni­ver­sity of Mas­sachusetts in Amhurst and earned his ND from Bastyr Uni­ver­sity in Seat­tle, Washington, said chemo­ther­apy is still used be­cause doc­tors and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies make money from it. “That’s the only rea­son: 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.” More­over, he added that “The can­cer in­dus­try” (phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies and doc­tors) 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.” Dr. Glid­den said toxic chemo­ther­apy drugs just hap­pen to take a lit­tle longer to kill than many other poi­sonous sub­stances – such as cyanide and ar­senic - and he said they’re de­signed that way for a good rea­son. “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.” With these kind of claims, one has to won­der how re­searchers man­age to pro­mul­gate a “one-intwo” chance of sur­vival for those who take con­ven­tional can­cer treat­ments, which means chemo­ther­apy and ra­di­a­tion. Dr. Glid­den said it’s clear to any trained eye that ini­tial le­sions that are doubt­ful, or de­bat­able, as to whether or not they are ma­lig­nant, rep­re­sent the over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of the tu­mours be­ing de­tected. In other words, pa­tients with these le­sions are ei­ther un­likely, or much less likely to de­velop ma­lig­nant can­cer than those who def­i­nitely can­cer tu­mours. By in­clud­ing these ini­tial le­sions, which Dr. Glid­den char­ac­ter­izes as “pre­sumed neo­plasias”, re­searchers are able to in­flate sur­vival rates for chemo­ther­apy pa­tients. “It is equally clear how of­ten these pre­sumed neo­plasias (tu­mours), which are of­ten sub­ject to both mis­un­der­stand­ing and ma­nip­u­la­tion, in­flate those sta­tis­tics to the point of im­plau­si­bil­ity.” He added that the rea­son a five-year rel­a­tive sur­vival rate is the stan­dard used to as­sess mor­tal­ity rates is due to most can­cer pa­tients go­ing down­hill af­ter this pe­riod. Mean­while, Dr. Glid­den said if the long-term sta­tis­tics (ten plus years) for all can­cers ad­min­is­tered chemo­ther­apy 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 that chemo­ther­apy makes lit­tle to no con­tri­bu­tion to can­cer sur­vival at all. But he in­ti­mated that this is not go­ing to hap­pen any time soon be­cause re­searchers are funded by cor­po­ra­tions - mainly phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies - which make a for­tune from chemo­ther­apy drugs. “No such study has ever been con­ducted by in­de­pen­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tors in the history of chemo­ther­apy. The only stud­ies avail­able come from (can­cer) in­dus­try funded in­sti­tu­tions and sci­en­tists and none of them have ever in­clu­sively quan­ti­fied the above vari­ables.” He added that clin­i­cal stud­ies never in­clu­sively as­sess the long-term sur­vival and re­cov­ery rates of can­cer pa­tients be­cause dam­age to the im­mune sys­tem, or­gan and meta­bolic tox­i­c­i­ties, en­docrine chal­lenges and neu­rocog­ni­tive prob­lems slowly devel­ops af­ter chemo­ther­apy. “It 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 ever had be­fore their di­ag­no­sis, due to and as a di­rect re­sult of cy­to­toxic drug in­ter­ven­tion.” This may be, in no small part, be­cause chemo­ther­apy does not tar­get can­cer cells and it kills far more nor­mal cells than can­cer cells and dam­ages and tox­i­fies many of the nor­mal cells that do sur­vive.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.