My hope and purpose for sharing this information is that other people will be better informed on the choices available to them in their quest for cancer treatment. The medical community shares with us only what they are taught and know. That makes sense, right? But, there is so much more out there that doctors were not taught in school. I believe deep down that I have an obligation to share this information to anyone who seeks to know more.
I pray that by me sharing this information people will at least begin to realize the multitude of options available to them which will allow them to make a more educated choice for themselves. The doctors will share with you the three main treatment options: Chemo, radiation and surgery. I am here to share what I’ve learned and I pray that you will use this information as a tool to further your own personal research. One which leads you onto a path of treatment that you know is right for you.
Upon a diagnosis of cancer, the oncologist will make his or her recommendation for your treatment and will tell you, most likely, to begin immediately. This doesn’t give you much time to think about the information and to do further research to better understand the statistics or outcome of the practically demanded treatment.
In my case for example, I was diagnosed with a rare cancer called leiomyosarcoma. It was rated as high-grade. The oncologist told me I needed to begin chemotherapy right away. I asked the doctor a few straight forward questions.
- Isn’t it true that the survival rate past five years for this type of cancer is only about 3%? His response was that it’s more like 4%.
- Then I asked him how many patients he has had, under my same exact circumstances (who’ve had a tumor removed, leaving pieces of it behind-unclear margins) who’ve done the chemo, and have lived past 5 years? His answer was that he’s had a few live 3 or 4 years. Ok, so I took that as no survivors.
These are not statistics he was going to share with me. He seemed reluctant to answer and even a bit agitated that I was even questioning him about it. Don’t I have a right to know what I’m in for? I don’t know about you but I took the bull by the horns from day one and researched to find out everything I could about the cancer I was diagnosed with before I met with the oncologist. Maybe it’s because too many times in my past I have gone to doctors who could not help me. One time which stands out in my mind the most was when I was having a very hard time breathing. My doctor at the time ran several tests and when I returned for the results he said, and I quote “your tests all came back normal, we could find nothing wrong with you so go have yourself a great summer.” What? Are you kidding me? I sat there in disbelief and said, “But, I can’t breathe!” Our visit ended on that note and off I was to begin to find out for myself what was wrong. Turns out, it was an allergy or intolerance to dairy.
Anyway, to get back on track, I believe with all my heart, that you have to take the time to breathe and take it all in. Waiting a few weeks before beginning your treatment isn’t going to kill you, and if it does, the treatment wouldn’t do much good at that point anyway. You need to digest everything you just heard. Much of it will probably mean one thing to you but in reality it means something else.
What I mean by that is that there are some things you need to know about the terms the oncologist will use. Your idea of the definition of these terms may not be what the doctors usage of it means.
“...chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be “prolonged” beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life.”… “Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for “cure” by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way.”—John Diamond, M.D.
Let’s take a look at one:
- Cure – as you see in the statement above by John Diamond, MD a cure simply means the person lives past 5 years. They may die the day after their 5 year anniversary date but they are still counted or considered cured. At what point did someone decide that to live just 5 years after a cancer diagnosis is a cure? I don’t know about you but I would feel much more “cured” if the statistic was based on 20 years or more! Under the full definition of cure in the Webster dictionary cure means: a complete or permanent solution or remedy. I don’t think I need to define permanent here. Their idea of a cure is not permanent.
“The FDA defines an ‘effective’ drug as one that achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when a doctor says ‘effective’ to a cancer patient, it does not mean it cures cancer-only temporary shrinks a tumor.” (2.)
Now, let’s look at effective:
- Effective – I am once again going to refer to the time frame of the FDA’s definition…28 days. Really, who thinks up these things? The tumor has to have a reduction in size for only 28 days to be considered effective. Wouldn’t you feel much more confident in your treatment if you knew that effectiveness was measured in years not days? I’m just saying. So when your doctor tells you he/she wants you to have “x” treatment done, it can be very effective, ask for specifics! How effective? For how long?
From everything I have found chemotherapy is not all that they make it out to be. I believe there is so much information that we are not being told and if the general public was made more aware and had a better understanding of the facts we would all demand better and more effective treatments. We need to come together as a large enough majority and say, “Enough is enough!”
“In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life.
However, when the cancer patient hears the doctor say “effective,” he or she thinks, and logically so, that “effective” means it has a good possibility of curing them.
But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.” (3.).
Chemo is only effective long-term in about 5 types of cancers. (4.) Why is the medical community continuing to use a treatment that is barbaric and ineffective?” Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells. The major problem with it is that it kills healthy cells as well. When a body is already compromised with an illness or disease like cancer you need your immune system working top-notch. By killing off healthy cells you are reeking even more havoc on your body and reducing its ability to fight the cancer.
Ok, so I did get on the soap box there for a minute but maybe you will see where my passion comes from after I share with you some revelations I have found regarding chemotherapy.
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors,” said Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer.” (5.)
“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.” (5.)
These are just two quotes discussing the effectiveness or should I say in-effectiveness of chemotherapy. I could list hundreds more just like these. The proof is out there but our doctors aren’t sharing it. Why aren’t they sharing it? Good question! From everything I have read I believe it boils down to several factors.
- Money – not necessarily their money but control forced on them by the FDA as a result of the FDA not wanting to lose money. The FDA does not want any treatments on the market which cannot be patented and natural treatments cannot be.
- Lack of knowledge – the doctors only spend about 4 hours or so training in nutrition and alternatives.
- Misleading statistics – apparently, even the doctors are interpreting the results of clinical studies in a way which makes them believe the study was more successful than it really was. The confusion comes about because of the use of two terms “relative risk” and “absolute risk.” In an Australian study done on “How effective is chemotherapy” as published by the International Center for Nutritional Research it says “It is not only patients who are misled by the overuse of relative risk in reporting the results of medical interventions. Several studies have shown that physicians are also frequently beguiled by this kind of statistical sleight of hand.” It also states this, “Another study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, demonstrated that the way in which survival benefits are presented specifically influenced the decision of medical professionals to recommend chemotherapy. Since 80 percent of patients chose what their oncologist recommends, the way in which the oncologist perceives and conveys the benefits of treatment is of vital importance. This study showed that when physicians are given relative risk reduction figures for a chemotherapy regimen, they are more likely to recommend it to their patients than when they are given the mathematically identical information expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Chao 2003).”
When studies tout the benefits of a treatment having shown a relative risk reduction of 50% that sounds promising. But, when that relative risk reduction % is explained in terms of absolute risk reduction instead it may only be 2 to 4% for example. In other words, a reduction from 4% to 2% is a 50% relative risk reduction OR it can be said as a 2% absolute risk reduction. Confused yet? Well, as mentioned above you are not alone. These methods of reporting statistics may at times be confusing and misleading to our doctors as the above article stated.
There is so much more information available explaining the negative effects of chemotherapy. I encourage you to continue on with research on this subject until you know in your mind if it would or would not be beneficial to the particular cancer you have. In my mind, however, no matter what cancer I had, I would not feel the benefits of chemo outweigh the negative effects of it not to mention the reduction in the quality of life. My choice is today and always will be for alternative cancer healing methods.
- Trends in the Treatment of Uterine Leiomyosarcoma in the Medicare Population. Foley OW, Rauh-Hain JA, Clemmer J., Clark RM, Hall T, Diver EJ, Schorge JO, Del Carmen MG International Journal of Gynecological Cancer Jan 27, 2015 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25628107)
- Jon Barron, Chemotherapy an Interesting Choice (http://www.whale.to/cancer/barron.html)
- Dr. Mercola (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/03/01/are-vitamin-supplements-a-bad-idea-for-cancer-patients.aspx)
- Jon Barron, Chemotherapy an Interesting Choice (http://www.whale.to/cancer/barron.html)
- The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies (Clinical Oncology 12/16/2004) Morgan, G., Ward, R., Bart, M.