Everything has its place, including standard chemotherapy and radiation. But the truth is that their place should usually be near the back of the line. Nobody has all the answers, but it is clear that chemotherapy is not one of them. In the course of time, integrative approaches to beating cancer will cast irrefutable shame on this horrific and supposedly “scientific” period of medicine.

Reason # 1: Chemotherapy has not been proven to be generally effective

“….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.”

—John Diamond, M.D.

“An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: 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.”

NaturalNew.com, citing:—Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.

The FDA defines an “effective” drug as one which succeeds in reducing tumor size by more than 50% for at least 28 days. However, there is no evidence that this shrinking of tumors correlates with curing cancer or extending life. If you can find such evidence, please share it.

Reason # 2: Standard chemotherapy might never become generally effective

“With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago.”

—P Quillin, Ph.D.

“1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24th century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time.”

—Ralph Moss.

Even this 1.7% increase in “success” rate is worse than it sounds…:

Reason # 3: Five-year survival does not spell “success”

The term “success rate” refers to the patient surviving beyond 5 years. This does not say anything about the quality of life after those 5 years or the quality of life during those 5 years while undergoing and recovering from the toxic effects of chemotherapy.

Reason # 4: Chemotherapy can cause more harm than good

Considering that chemotherapy has essentially been shown to not improve average lifespan, one must realize that once you account for the variability in this average measure, that means a huge fraction of patients actually have their lifespans reduced by chemotherapy.

If a person receives conventional treatment that fails, the immune system is weakened. When that person then tries to pursue alternatives, the chance of success is decreased since integrative approaches rely heavily on the immune system.

In addition, chemotherapy is associated with increased risk of second cancers.

“Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin’s disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40—which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years.”

—New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996

“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”

—Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.

“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 (NCI Journal 87:10).”

—John Diamond

“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…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it.”

—Alan Levin, M.D.

Reason # 5: Many cancers are treated unnecessarily

Studies support the view that many early cancers spontaneously go away. More frequent screening for certain types of cancer has lead to more detections (and subsequent treatments), but has not lead to decreases in corresponding late stage cancers. If those early detections were likely to become late stage cancer eventually, then the number of late stage cases should have decreased. This demonstrates that a significant amount of early stage treatment is not actually needed. In these cases, people are weakening their bodies with toxic therapies unnecessarily.

Reason # 6: Conventional treatments do nothing to eliminate the underlying cause or prevent recurrence of cancer

As seen in Reason # 4, conventional treatment can actually increase recurrence of cancer. Removing cancer cells does nothing to correct the terrain which allowed it to appear in the first place. In fact, it makes the terrain even worse.

The term “oncologist” implies you understand the physiology of tumors. This is actually an improper use of the title as oncologists are usually in fact “chemotherapists”.

Countless lifestyle, diet, and environmental causes of cancer have been identified. The onset of the cancer epidemic has been so sudden that it cannot be anything other than predominantly an environmental illness. Seeing how this is basically a known fact, it makes no sense that mainstream oncology does almost nothing to help patients reverse these causes, even though countless therapies have been proven safe and effective at doing so.

Reason # 7: Statistics on conventional treatments are biased and misleading

Chemotherapy statistics are designed to be misleading. This topic is so large that I had to write a separate article just on it. A few simple mathematical tricks appear to have succeeded in misleading doctors as a whole, who unfortunately then must not be all that well prepared to understand and interpret statistics (at least I hope so – or else they are knowingly inflicting harm in many instances).

Reason # 8: Conventional doctors typically give up on you after treatment fails

It is a true statement that few alternatives have been “proven” by large controlled studies. However, there is plenty of evidence that many of these alternatives “might” work. Countless substances have shown effectiveness against cancer and lack of toxicity in clinical trials, animal studies, and in several other ways. The doctor’s job is to get you well. After conventional treatment fails, if doctors can throw 50 things at you that are safe, each of which “might” work (even though none of them have been “proven”), then why don’t they do it?

Say for example 10 supplements each have only a 25% chance of having some effect against cancer (i.e. they are not “proven”). Do you know what is the chance that at least one them them is effective against cancer? It is (1 – (0.75)^10) = 0.94 … in other words 94% in this hypothetical example.

The claim “there is nothing more I can do for you” is simply untrue.

Reason # 9: Recovered hospice patients are not followed

Many “terminal” cancer patients who are placed on hospice end up recovering from alternative treatments tried on their own. However, no organization documents what these patients did to recover prior to being removed from hospice.

Reason # 10: Cancer doctors rarely follow up when patients recover

Cancer doctors almost never call alternative doctors when their patients somehow recover with their help. Nor do they call patients when they recover and are removed from hospice. If you are a physician who has supposedly dedicated your life to helping people with cancer, and you do not follow up on patients that actually do get well, then many may truly view your behavior as questionable.

Reason # 11: Supplements are usually not allowed with chemotherapy

The purely theoretical fear is that supplements may decrease the effect of the chemotherapy when given simultaneously. But the studies that show various supplements may decrease effectiveness are both sparse and seriously flawed. In fact, the entirety of literature says just the opposite- that on a whole, supplements decrease the toxicity of chemotherapy and/or potentiate its effects. Thus far, there is not good evidence at all that supplements interfere with chemotherapy, and a lot of evidence that they help.

Subscribe to the email newsletter, and I will someday post references to many substances that have been shown to improve chemotherapy outcomes.

Reason # 12: Harmful hospital food

The last time I was in a chemotherapy ward, all the patients (many of whom looked sickly – possibly from treatment) were served artificially sweetened fruit juice. Aside from sugar being shown to hurt your body in 146 different ways, it is especially bad for cancer, since sugar accelerates cancer metabolism. This activity is mediated by insulin. This observation has been so powerful that this precise weakness has even led to targeted forms of chemotherapy such as insulin potentiation therapy and certain sugar-coated chemotherapy drugs.

Several studies show that those with cancer who eat sugar die sooner. Knowing this, does not a physician who fails to recommend a sugar-free diet meet the definition of negligence?

If a person with cancer is being fed intravenously, they are basically getting fed Ensure, which has such a high sugar content that it is often necessary to give the patient an injection of insulin to control blood sugar levels. This preferentially drives sugar into cancer cells, and aids cancer metabolism.

Reason # 13: Patients may be asked to enroll in clinical trials

According to one survey published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1987, 81% of cancer specialists would not consent to a drug trial due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

There are many reasons not to enroll in clinical trials, the most significant reason being death from the disease. Patients are viewed as participants, and not as human beings who need individualized care. Any treatment received in a clinical trial is experimental. Clinical trials are no more scientific than the realm of alternative treatments.

Reason #14: Poor palliative care kills you

If you have terminal cancer, IV vitamins and minerals won’t likely save your life. But they can make you feel better. Terminal patients can get blood transfusions, but why not any other type of therapy that can help to renormalize body chemistry? One example is that swelling in cancer is often caused by a deficiency in a protein called albumin. Relief can be gained by IV administration of this substance.

Patients do not get the best palliative care because of cost. Narcotics are cheap. They also have been proven to disable your immune system and hasten death. Conventional hospice and palliative care is designed to help you die comfortably and affordably and not to help you live longer.

Reason # 15: Chemotherapy is inferior to insulin potentiation therapy.

Many alternative treatments are clearly superior to chemotherapy. However, one alternative is particularly insulting to chemotherapy because of the fact that it is chemotherapy. Insulin potentiation therapy uses low dose chemotherapy with insulin to selectively target chemotherapy drugs to cancer cells. The result is better cancer killing effects per treatment, little to no side effects, and ability to treat multiple times per week. This leads to a safe and far more aggressive cancer killing chemotherapy when compared to conventional chemotherapy. Despite the wealth of evidence surrounding this therapy, it has simply been ignored.

Reason # 16: Conventional cancer care is overwhelmingly profit driven

“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.”

—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

“Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough.”

—Dr Diamond, M.D.

• Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy – 75%.
• Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the world – Bristol-Meyers Squibb.
• Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers – Richard L. Gelb.
• Mr. Gelb’s other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of managers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World’s largest private cancer treatment and research center.
• Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s board of overseers, board of managers – John S. Reed.
• Reed’s other job – director, Philip Morris (tobacco company).
• Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company – Samuel Broder.
• Broder’s other job (until 1995) – executive director, National Cancer Institute.

—Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins.

Reason # 17: Most major cancer charities are a scam

For many major cancer charities, on the order of only 10% of donations go towards funding actual programs. The rest goes towards marketing, promotion, and administration. Many instances of embezzlement have also been exposed. Your donation could be giving a CEO a bonus. In addition, many funded programs do nothing but perpetuate the unsuccessful cancer treatments of conventional medicine.

Reason # 18: Conventional treatment violates the Hippocratic Oath

Chemotherapy is undeniably harmful (see Reason # 4). In some cases, it may not cause much harm. But in many, it becomes a sad and tragic affair. Would drugs as toxic as chemotherapy ever be approved by the FDA in any other context?

A Warning

Yes, it’s basically insanity. But don’t wash your hands of conventional treatments. Some rare cancers have been shown to be effectively treatable with chemotherapy. Surgery and radiation have their own problems also, but they also have their use. An oncologist can also tell you about what the newest research says, and help you diagnose and monitor your progress.

Disclaimer: This article is not medical advice. This article is opinion and is for informational purposes only. If seeking medical advice, consult a licensed physician.

• 

Related Articles:

• 15 Keys to Beating Cancer Naturally
• 56 Published Studies Say Neem Fights Cancer
• Liposomal Ubiquinol (CoQH) and Natural Cancer Treatment
• Poly-MVA Cancer Trials Yield Impressive Results
• IPT Makes Standard Chemotherapy Obsolete
• Lactoferrin: Its Uses in Cancer and Anemia
• Fight Cancer with Natural Angiogenesis Inhibitors
• Chemotherapy Studies Prove It Is Generally Not Effective
• 46 Ways to Protect Yourself from Radiation
• Cancer CAUSES Alkaline pH (Why Alkalizing May Not Make Any Sense)