Chemo woefully ineffective as a cancer treatment...

http://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html

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."

The authors point out that the similarity of the figures for Australia and the US make it very likely that the recorded benefit of 2.5 percent or less would be mirrored in other developed countries also.

No one can say that you give up.

Again, no footnotes, no science other than summaries and certainly any person familiar with survival rates knows that cancer of the lung has not had the advantages of other cancers which use chemo and radiation. Post the actual studies.......with footnotes. Cherry picking a cancer which has not had improved survival rates in the last 20 years and indexing that low five year survival rate to a 3% improved five year rate is not even an intelligent discussion of the issue. It is better than suggesting that the treatment is killing people, and it does raise the spectrum of science, deeply hidden in conclusions and no footnotes or links......nothing new here.

The truth is many cancer treatments do not even involve chemo because it does not have the efficacy to justify its use, yet other cancers have higher success and five year survivability rates with its use. Pretending to have an intelligent discussion on the issue will require real studies with real links and footnotes. Science is the answer, and science is objective and capable of being discussed rationally without a political agenda for distortion.

Nekochan wrote:No one can say that you give up.

FULL PDF OF THE STUDY WITH DOCUMENTATION....

http://chrisbeatcancer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-5-year-survival.pdf

The 30-40% proportional risk reductions that can be produced by combined chemo-endocrine therapy in middle age are similar for node-positive and for node-negative patients, but the absolute improvement in 10-year survival is about twice as great for the former (at least 12 deaths avoided per 100 women treated) as for the latter.

https://archive.ugent.be/record/236379

The article posted is entirely inadequate science, and was posted by a dietary online blog site which thinks one dimensional chemo analysis will give true modalities of cancer treatment in America in 2013. The combined treatment with biological agents and targeted radiation have remarkable survival rates in particular cancers, but lung cancer remains static and perhaps the least advancements in the newer combined approaches to cancer.

A person that is facing a choice of 3% improvement has a legitimate discussion with their health care provider as to the efficacy of treatment, but the distortion of this article fails to recognize that combined treatments are showing much higher survival rates, and 12% and higher are being reported. I personally have seen the current data on survivability of endocrine cancer's historic data turned upside down with the simple efficacy of double dosage and some remarkable increase from the 7% shrinkage of tumors to as high as 28%.

The discussion between a patient and the modality of treatment is specific and truthful. This idea of a doctor selling procedures which have low efficacy is just the opposite of what is happening. Certainly mistakes can be made, and new methodologies are not always known and shared. There is transparency for the most part among patients who share information on their treatments and options on cancer specific blog sites provided by the American Cancer Society. This idea of sophistry and lack of science, or manipulation of options by economic indicators rather than true success rates is simply fantasy not worthy of discussion. Most cancer patients are wise enough to be adequately versed on the modalities of treatment and the survival rates of the same.

The chart posted again over simplifies the statistical approaches to the treatment of cancer and the multi tiered use of biological agents, surgery, chemo, and radiation. This simple chemo or not choice ignores the interaction of the other agents and the improved efficacy of treatment. To use an analogy, it would be like comparing gas mileage between vehicles for purposes of getting ratings and ignoring other factors which impact the mileage like tire pressure, gear ratios, and carb adjustments, and driver standarization. The problem with this Australian study is that it is not taking into account the complexities of treatment offered to patients in conjunction with Chemo. There are real choices and real efficacy in each of the choices. The over simplification that Chemo has only a 3% efficacy is not taking into consideration the real world use of multiple modalities with far more diverse survival rates and much much higher efficacy with some combined chemo treatments, and any doctor at Northwestern or Moffit would laugh at the suggestion that Chemo has only a 3% efficacy. Yes, when using static one dimensional treatment, survivability is not as great as chemo in combination with those other modalities.

Traditional chemo has zero efficacy with endocrine cancer. However, for me to generalize that chemo is without merit is simply idiotic. Each cancer and each strain within a type of cancer has different modalities and survival rates. These are rapidly changing with the introduction of biological agents. My two biological shots simply have changed historic rates to the point they are no longer even valid, and you are advised not to put much credence in the same. In some cancers like testicular cancer the jumps in survival rates have simply jumped off the charts. The Australian study is using data as old as 1985 and makes no provision for biological agents introduced in current treatments at most research facilities in America.

Shame on you. This is radically misleading.

This individual had colon cancer and had SURGERY. That word isn't even mentioned on this page. If the surgery was successful, any possible chemo therapy could have been preventive. His survival as likely had nothing to do with a lack of chemo and far more likely due to a skilled surgeon.

The information is also based on treatment ONLY with chemo therapy. Seldom, if ever, is chemo therapy the ONLY treatment given to a cancer patient. They use many approaches at the same time.

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

He may or may not believe the bull he is spreading. My guess is that he has a great scam going and he contributes just enough to legitimate cancer charities to cover his behind and maintain a tax exempt status.

The aristocratic, wealthy elite of America played a central role in the development of eugenics in America and abroad. Two such elite families are the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.

In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute which among other things, funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The ERO (1910-1944) operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed in this office.

The Rockefellers, perhaps more so, were also heavily involved with eugenics. Rockefeller influence in American eugenics can be traced to the beginnings of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. John D. Rockefeller, along with Averell Harriman gave $11 million to create the facility in the early 1900′s. Rockefeller influence also spread overseas to Germany, where the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity resided. Much of the money used to run these facilities came from Rockefeller. These weren’t just average scientific institutes; the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes would become the center for Nazi eugenics programs.

"Embedded in progressivism was the idea of scientific management - long-range planning by university-trained experts. This new managerial class became increasingly vital to the economic process. In a country that had nurtured a reverence for invention, the use of scientific management had a special appeal. Progressive reformers had a strong faith in science as the cure - all that would herald in a new era of rational control of both nature and human society. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the revelations of a new science of genetics gave birth to a new science of social engineering - eugenics."
Garland E. Allen
Social Origins of Eugenics
Washington University
February 11, 2000

Dr Cornelius Rhoads (1898-1959) | Rockefeller Institute

During WWII, Rhoads headed two large chemical warfare projects, he had a seat on the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), and he headed the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research.

The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and theivish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere... I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more... All physicians take delight in the abuse and torture of the unfortunate subjects.

From a letter given by recipient to the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party. Rhoads was investigated, but although he never denied writing the letter, the prosecutor said Rhoads was just a "mentally ill person or a man with few scruples," so he was never prosecuted.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Dr Cornelius Rhoads (1898-1959) | Rockefeller Institute

During WWII, Rhoads headed two large chemical warfare projects, he had a seat on the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), and he headed the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research.

   The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and theivish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere... I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more... All physicians take delight in the abuse and torture of the unfortunate subjects.

From a letter given by recipient to the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party. Rhoads was investigated, but although he never denied writing the letter, the prosecutor said Rhoads was just a "mentally ill person or a man with few scruples," so he was never prosecuted.

You must have been "thinking" that you had a potent point when you spread this word salad.

Any translation or explanation of some event which occurred over 60 years ago has to do with today.