HOW
SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?
By Walter
Last
The
medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that
underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer
faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start immediately on a
scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals
in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority.
How
would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies
for simple health problems but for something as serious as cancer you may feel
safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless,
if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision.
You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer
treatment.
In this
article I have assembled some little known facts about the science behind
orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success (expressed as a five-year
survival rate) is established by comparing other forms and combinations of
treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of
surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients,
and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox
cancer treatment is inherently unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is
not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo
effect.
In
support of my position I offer the following key statements and conclusions from
medical and scientific publications.
“Studies appear to show that early
intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early
removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left
untouched.” In other words,
early intervention appears helpful because lesions are
removed that are not cancerous
but they are counted as being cancer, and that improves survival
statistics. “Also, it does not
matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the
same “(1). This statement
indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances; otherwise there would
be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.
Researchers said it
is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to
a futile mutilating procedure (2). Furthermore, there is no evidence that early
mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this then they would most likely
refuse surgery (3).
In 1993 the editor
of The Lancet pointed out that despite various modifications of breast
cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He acknowledges that despite the
almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its
extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words, not mine) in all truth has
lost its way. At the same time
he rejects those who now believe that salvation will come from increasing
chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient.
Instead, he continues, “would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach
has failed?” Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating
women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is Breast
cancer: have we lost our way? (4).
Basically all types
and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the
same low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that
can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term
survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, M.D., a leading British breast cancer
surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse
or death within three years. He also linked surgery to the accelerated spread of
cancer, which it does by forming metastases in other parts of the body (5).
An
earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast
cancer lived longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat
postmenopausal women for breast cancer (6).
This
conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of
radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by
medical intervention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated
to the cancer (7). Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased number of
cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention
(especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a
recipe for disaster. It is metastases that kill while primary tumors in general,
and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless. These
findings have been confirmed by recent research, which shows that surgery, even
if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and
lead to an untimely end (8).
This
follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to
spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first
randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years there was no
difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and controls (who did
not) but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or
incontinence (9).
The late H B Jones, Professor of Medical
Physics, was a leading
Massaging
Statistics
A recent epidemiological study confirmed the
questionable value of conventional therapy by concluding that 'medical
interventions for cancer have had a negligible or no effect on survival' (11).
Even the conservative New England Journal of Medicine had an article with
the headline: Cancer Undefeated (12).
Common
ways to make medical statistics look more favorable are as follows. Patients who
die during prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy are not counted
in the statistics, because they did not receive the full treatment. In the
control group everyone who dies is counted. Further, success is judged by the
percentage of temporary tumor shrinking, regardless of survival times; if
survival is measured, then only in terms of dying from the treated disease. It
is not normally shown how many of the patients die due to the treatment itself.
The current trend is to pick up
pre-cancerous conditions very early and treat them as cancer. While this
statistically increases the number of people with cancer, it also artificially
prolongs survival times and lowers death rates, thereby making medical
treatments appear to be more successful. However, there may also be a genuine
component of improved survival, as increasing numbers of cancer patients opt for
additional natural therapies.
An investigation of
the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that the death rate
attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was 200 per cent higher
than would normally be expected. Two years after diagnosis and treatment this
excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause for the excess death
was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means instead of dying several
years later of cancer, these patients died from the effects of the
treatment and helped greatly improve the cancer statistics because they did
not strictly die of cancer (13). This misleading reporting of cancer deaths
has led to demands for more honest statistics (14).
After an analysis of several
large mammogram-screening studies found that mammography screening leads to more
aggressive treatment with no survival benefits (15), even the editor of the
Lancet had to admit that there is no reliable evidence from large
randomised trials to support mammography screening programs (15). The
significance of this statement goes far beyond the use of mammograms. It is
openly acknowledged by the proponents of conventional medicine that they have no
effective way of helping patients with advanced cancer. Until now the catch-cry
always was 'detect it early then it can be cured'. These mammogram evaluation
studies demonstrate that it does not matter when cancer is detected, the
conventional methods, and with this the whole multi-billion dollar cancer
industry, are useless (my conclusion).
A
13-year Canadian study with 40,000 women compared physical breast examinations
with examinations plus mammograms. The mammogram group had many more
lumpectomies and surgeries, and the death rate was 107 deaths in the mammography
group and 105 in the physical examination group (16).
Ductal
carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a common non-invasive form of breast tumor. Most
cases of DCIS are detected through the use of mammography; in younger women 92
per cent of all cancers detected by mammography are of this type. Nevertheless,
on average 44%, and in some areas 60%, of these are treated by mastectomy. As
most of these tumors are harmless, this greatly improves survival statistics
(17).
While conventional diagnosis is invasive and
may help to spread the cancer, a kind of electrodermal screening, called
Biofield test, was developed by a team from eight European hospitals and
universities, and reported in the Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in
diagnosing malignancy in breast tumours (18).
A large
meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that after 2 years
there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in addition to
surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The editorial states that
the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after surgery but it is a
shame that the facts do not agree with this theory (19).
Chemotherapy - Medical
Russian Roulette
Chemotherapy
for children with leukemia and Hodgkin's disease is the proud showpiece of the
arguably only apparent success of orthodox cancer therapy. Now a long-term
follow-up study shows that such children develop 18 times more secondary
malignant tumors later in life. Even worse, girls face a 75 times (7,500%)
higher risk of breast cancer by the time they are 40 (20). A main problem
appears to be the development of deep or systemic Candida albicans
infections shortly after starting chemotherapy (21). If this is not
appropriately treated, then relapses or future health problems are likely to
occur.
Chemotherapy showed a clear dose dependency
whereby the incidence of triggered leukemia doubled between low dose and
moderate dose groups and then quadrupled between the moderate dose and the high
dose groups. A study of ovarian cancer found that the risk of developing
leukemia after treatment with chemotherapy increased 21 fold or 2100%.
Also other tumors commonly develop after treating malignancies with chemotherapy
(22). In a trial for multiple myeloma no advantage was found by using
chemotherapy as compared to no treatment (23).
The respected German biostatician Ulrich Abel
presented a comprehensive analysis of over 3,000 clinical trials on the value of
chemotherapy on advanced carcinoma (for instance breast cancer). Oncologists
tend to use chemotherapy because this may induce a temporary shrinking of the
tumour, called a response; however, it also tends to produce unpleasant side
effects. Abel concluded that there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy
prolongs survival in these cases. Abel states: "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" (24). Ralph W. Moss,
PhD, in Questioning Chemotherapy, provides a detailed analysis of this
subject. The overall conclusion of the book is that there is no evidence that
chemotherapy extends life for the majority of cancers. (25).
However, even if chemotherapy would extend life
for a few months, what about the quality of this life? Tom Nesi, a former
director of public affairs at the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb,
wrote in the New York Times about the ‘successful’ treatment of his wife, which
statistically extended her life for three months (26). Two weeks after the
treatment she scribbled on a notepad: “depressed - no more - please." I am not
surprised about reports that most oncologists would not use these treatments for
their own families.
Only recently have oncologists started to
acknowledge what patients called “chemo-brain”, a distressing loss of
memory and other cognitive functions.
Psychiatrists have now found that cancer and its conventional treatment
cause serious depression in 15 to 25 percent of patients. "The depression itself
can often be worse than the disease" they say (27).
The Full Treatment
Virginia Livingston (later
Livingston-Wheeler), a remarkable cancer researcher and therapist in her book,
'Cancer - A New Breakthrough' (28), gives an account of one of the many patients
she saw who had come to her only after receiving the full medical treatment for
breast cancer.
'After discovering a small breast
lump she had radical mastectomy. None of the lymph nodes removed from the armpit
were involved; all of the cancer had been successfully removed. To make extra
sure that there was no re-growth in the scars, she received radiation treatment,
and also her ovaries were taken out.'
'To her dismay, a year later several
small nodules appeared in the old breast scar. Again she received radiation.
More lumps appeared on the neck that called for still more radiation. In
addition she received male hormone therapy, resulting in acne and coarse facial
hair. Still the nodules came back. Now she received chemotherapy with the usual
side effects.'
'Before her hair could re-grow, pain
in her bones was diagnosed as bone cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy
was expected to help. However, several months later the bone lesions became
worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended and performed.
Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for another year. After that the
removal of her pituitary gland might give her a further three to six months to
live.'
'By now her faith in her medical
advisers was sufficiently shaken that she came to Dr Livingston for help. She
asked to be examined without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare
him the agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken with
an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she whispered: "Doctor,
shall I kill myself?"
A Conspiracy of
Silence
Why are
they doing this? With ‘they’ I am referring to what is commonly called ‘the
cancer establishment’. I believe the answer was given by the eminent medical
commentator and former editor of New Scientist, Dr. Donald Gould, in a
timeless article called Cancer - A Conspiracy of Silence. The subtitle
summarises his position: The commonest cancers are as resistant to treatment
today as they were 40 or 50 years ago. Nothing is to be gained by pretending
that the battle against cancer is slowly but surely being won (29).
This
truth has been deliberately concealed from the general public. According to
Gould, the reason for this conspiracy of silence is money. The public must
continue to see the Cancer Establishment as a winner to continue providing
money. One of the quoted scientists said that with tens of thousands of
radiologists and millions of dollars in equipment one just gives radiation
treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than
good.
Gould
also is of the opinion that patients who could be comfortable without medical
treatment until their inevitable death, with medical treatment are made
miserable in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy weeks. But
of course, that is how most of the money is being made. Gould feels that they
poison their patients with drugs and rays and mutilate them with unnecessary
surgery in a desperate attempt to treat the untreatable. Not much has
changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In a recent Moss
Report (April 2004) we can read that long-term survival from common cancers such
as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung "has barely budged since the
1970s"(30). In summary, this means that there was no significant
improvement in cancer survival rates in the last 70 to 80 years.
The
Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals
It is also
interesting to know the scientific basis for the approval of cancer drugs. Most
of them come initially from the U.S.A. Commonly a company had to submit 2
favourable large, randomised trials to obtain FDA approval. ‘Favourable’ means
that there must be a certain rate of tumour shrinkage lasting for at least one
month. It was not necessary to show that the treatment prolonged survival, and
it was not necessary to submit the results of any unfavourable trials for the
same drug. Now these ‘strict scientific’ guidelines have been relaxed, and drug
companies can get FDA approval on the basis of small preliminary trials, even if
a large randomised trial may be unfavourable (31). In a remarkable statement
about drug approvals an
FDA spokesperson pointed out that any delay in approval did not mean unnecessary
deaths because "all these treatments for advanced cancer don't cure people"
(32).
However, and this is the important part, an individual cancer drug that
does not cure people can earn billions of dollars for its drug
company.
Perhaps
the situation is even worse than ineffective treatments. A group of respected researchers
reviewed all of the published statistical evidence of the outcome of medical
treatments. It shows that the medical system is now the leading cause of death
and injury in the
You may
wonder why health authorities turn a blind eye to these massive drug fatalities,
while concentrating their energies instead on suppressing food supplements and
natural remedies. A symptom of this official attitude is the recent saga of PAN
Pharmaceuticals when the government forced the largest Australian manufacturer
of natural remedies into bankruptcy, allegedly because there was a possibility
that some of these products might cause someone to get sick or even die. I see a main reason for this distorted
official attitude in the fact that health departments and regulatory authorities
are dominated by medical doctors who have been trained, partly with money from
drug companies, to believe that drugs are beneficial and natural remedies
potentially harmful. Despite a majority of western populations preferring
natural remedies, basically all political parties promote dependency on
pharmaceutical drugs. Therefore, as a first step to change this oppressive
political climate we urgently need a political party that dares to promote
natural health care rather than drug dependency.
We can
find a clue for the cause of these appalling “Death by Medicine” statistics in
an editorial by Richard Smith in the British Medical Journal. “Yet only 15% of
medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence”, and “This is
because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound,
and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all”
(34).
A good
demonstration of the unscientific nature of medical research is the recent
fiasco with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Several decades ago it was shown
in “rigorous scientific” research to be safe and effective; otherwise it would
not have been approved. It was
strongly promoted to protect against heart disease and cancer. Now every new
trial shows HRT to be dangerous and increasing the risk of developing heart
disease and cancer. What went wrong, why has this not been picked up earlier?
Quite simply, the original research was conducted with the aim of generating
profits, while recent researchers are not sharing in any of these profits.
Therefore, I mistrust any research that is conducted with profit in mind.
Unfortunately, this presently applies to most medical research.
The War on Cancer
It is now 32 years since President
Nixon declared the War on Cancer. Since then $US 2 Trillion has been spent on
conventional cancer treatment and research, with the result that more
individuals are dying of cancer than ever before (35). A similar assessment is
given by Clifton Leaf, Executive Editor of the mainstream Fortune
magazine. He asks: "Why have we made so little progress in the war on cancer?"
and continues to point out that the propaganda about improvement in survival
from cancer is largely a myth. Most of the improvement in longevity of cancer
patients is due to life style changes and early detection. Early detection
prolongs the statistical survival time without the patients living any longer.
Even adjusted for age, the percentage of Americans dying from cancer is about
the same as it was in 1950. More Americans will die of cancer in the next 14
months than have died from every war that the
While
there have been studies to evaluate the effects of various nutrients on
different cancers, nothing of these 2 Trillion cancer dollars has been available
for natural therapists to trial holistic cancer therapies. Even worse for
natural therapists, they had to face a century of persecution. A large number of
them was dragged before courts and ended up in jail. Would it not be more
scientific to impartially evaluate the methods of natural cancer therapists
rather than put them in jail?
In the
The only
reported study that comes close to investigating a holistic approach involves
the Gerson therapy in an evaluation of 5-year survival rates of 153 melanoma
patients. Here 100% of Gerson therapy patients with Stage I and II Cancers
survived, but only 79% with conventional therapy. With Stage III (regional
metastases) the figures, respectively, were 70% and 41%; with Stage IVa (distant
metastases) 39% with Gerson and 6% with conventional therapy
(37).
Many
natural cancer therapists claim a success rate of more than 90% in arresting and
reversing cancer, provided that patients have not been subjected to orthodox
treatments before. Most harmful appear to be chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Therefore, if you are confronted with cancer, I suggest that you resist acting
out of fear and under pressure. The situation is hardly ever so urgent that you
have to act immediately. Instead, do your own research from books, journals and
the Internet, and then trust your common sense or intuition.
References
(1) Skrabanek, P.: False
Premises and False Promises of Breast Cancer Screening. The Lancet 2:
316-19, 1985
(2) Baum, M.: The
Curability of Breast Cancer. Br Med J, 1: 439-42,
1976.
(3) Cunningham, L.:
Mastectomy for so-called lobular carcinoma in-situ. Lancet 1: 306,
1980
(4) Editorial: Breast
Cancer: Have we lost our way? Lancet 1: 341, 343-44,
1993
(5) Baum, M.: Does
surgery disseminate or accelerate cancer? Lancet, 1996 Jan 27; 347(8996):
260
(6) Gregl, A.: Die Lebenserwartung des unbehandelten Mammakarzinoms.: "The
life expectancy of the untreated mamma carcinoma (breast cancer)"
Klin
Wschr 41, 676,
1963
(7) Krokowski, E.H.: Is the
Current Treatment of Cancer Self-Limiting in the Extent of its Success? J
Int Acad Preventive Medicine, 6 (1) 23 – 39, 1979
(8) Tagliabue E et al : Role of HER2 in wound-induced breast
carcinoma proliferation. The Lancet
(9) Iversen, P. et al.:
Radical Prostatectomy versus Expectant Treatment for Early Carcinoma of the
Prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol 172, 65-72, 1995.
(10) Jones, H.B. Lecture at
the American Cancer Society Conference,
(11) McKinlay, J.B. et al.:
A Review of the Evidence Concerning the Impact of Medical Measures on Recent
Mortality and Morbidity in the
(12) Bailar JC III, Gornik
H.L.: Cancer undefeated.
(13) Brown,
B.W., C. Brauner and M.C. Minnotte: Noncancer deaths in white
adult cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 85, 979-987, 1993
(14) Welch, H.G.,
Black, W.C.: Are Deaths Within 1 Month of Cancer-Directed Surgery Attributed
to Cancer? J
Natl Cancer Inst 94: 1066-1070, 2002
(15) Olsen, O.; Gotzsche,
P.C.: Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography.
Lancet 2001 Oct 20; 358:1340-2
and Editorial 1284-85
(16) Miller, A.B., et al.:
Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a
randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 92,
(17) Ernster, Virginia L., et
al.: Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 275, No. 12, March
27, 1996, pp. 913-18
Page, David L. and Jensen, Roy A.: Ductal carcinoma
in situ of the breast. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.
275, No. 12, March 27, 1996, pp. 948-49
(18) Cuzick, Jack, et al.:
Electropotential measurements as a new diagnostic modality for breast
cancer. The Lancet, Vol. 352,
(19) PORT
Meta-analysis Trialists Group: Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung
cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine
randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1998 Jul 25; 352(9124): 257-63 and
Lancet 1998 Jul 25; 352(9124):250-1
(20) Bhatia, S., Robison, L.L.
et al.: Breast cancer and other second neoplasms after childhood
Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar 21;334(12):745-51.
(21) Klingspor, L., Stintzing,
G., Tollemar, J. Deep Candida infection in children with leukaemia. Acta
Paediatr 86 (1) 30-6, 1997
(22) Klein-Szanto, A.J.P.:
Carcinogenic effects of chemotherapeutic compounds. Progress in Clinical
and Biological Research, 374, 167-74, 1992.
(23) Riccardi, A., Mora, O.et
al.: Long-term survival of stage I multiple myeloma given chemotherapy just
after diagnosis or at progression of the disease: a multicentre randomized
study. Br J Cancer. 2000 Apr; 82(7):1254-60.
(24)
Abel U.: Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial cancer: a critical review.
Biomed Pharmacother. 1992; 46(10), 439-52.
(25) Moss,
Ralph W.: Questioning Chemotherapy. Equinox Press,
(26) Nesi, Tom: False hope
in a bottle [op-ed], New York Times, June 5/03
(27) Moss,
R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #128 April
11/04
(28)
(29) Gould, D.: Cancer - a Conspiracy of Silence. New
Scientist
(30)
Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #127 April 4/04
(31) Moss, R.W.: THE
MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #86
(June 7/03)
(32)
Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #122 February
28/04
(33) Null, G, Dean, C. et al.:
Death by Medicine. Nutrition Institute of
(34) Smith, R., editor: The
poverty of medical evidence. BMJ 303,
(35) Sharon Begley.: New
statistics show increase in cancer rates, cancer rates go up, not down. Wall
Street Journal,
(36)
Leaf, Clifford. Why we're losing the war on cancer. Fortune 2004
:149(6):76-97..
(37) Hildenbrand, G.L. et
al.: Five-year survival rates of melanoma patients treated by diet therapy
after the manner of Gerson: A retrospective review. Alternative Therapies
1(4): 29-37, Sept 1995