Conventional Treatments: What's Wrong With This Picture?

The ideal cancer treatment is prevention. The ideal path to prevention is harmony and balance in body, mind, emotions and spirit.

We are losing the war against cancer! One out of every two men and one out of three women will develop cancer in their lifetimes. Not so very long ago those numbers were one in three men and one in four women. So although some cancer cure rates are somewhat improved, there has been an exponential growth in the incidence of cancer in modern times. And we are spending vastly larger sums that we ever dreamed possible on providing healthcare in today’s world. There is obviously something very wrong with this picture.

Modern medicine has some wonderful attributes, one of which is its ability to diagnose disease via some fairly amazing high-tech and expensive equipment and testing methods. It is after the diagnosis however that the record doesn’t look so great, because of the failure of most conventional methods to produce long-term cures in cancer patients. Let’s take a look at why this might be so and contrast it with the philosophy of cancer treatment at the best international complementary and alternative (CAM) cancer clinics.

"Medicine is now a high risk industry, like aviation. But, the chance of dying in an aviation accident is one in 2 million, while the risk of dying from a medical accident is one in 200!"

--Dr. Leape of the Harvard Medical School of Public Health

Conventional cancer treatments—surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy-- aim all of their big guns directly and exclusively at the tumor, attempting to destroy it at all costs. And sometimes, because of treatment complications, those costs can even include the life of the patient-- the very thing that was supposed to be the goal in the first place. A compromised quality of life is another cost with conventional treatments, with side effects ranging from complete debilitation for months or even years, to transitory but significant discomfort.

There are generally few attempts made by conventional oncologists to incorporate critical detoxification measures into treatment protocols, as the highly toxic tumor load that is broken down by treatments must be eliminated by an already weakened body. Nutritional counseling or the critically important mental-emotional healing are frequently not valued or addressed as well. And consideration of energetic blockages in the body is still considered quackery by many.

For many cancers, the long term remission or cure rates using conventional treatments alone is frightening, with some studies actually showing no difference in long term survival rates between treated and non-treated patients---and this after our healthcare system has sometimes spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these treatments. So why are we continuing to demand that patients receive these standard protocols without even consideration of integrating relatively inexpensive, non-toxic CAM treatment methods?

What makes CAM cancer protocols so different?

CAM cancer treatment protocols have built their success on the philosophy and understanding that the tumor is actually only a symptom of an underlying imbalance or chronic condition in the body/mind which has probably been present for several years. When the tumor is removed or destroyed, the bodily conditions and imbalances that produced the cancer continue to be present and eventually create illness, probably cancer, again—hence a relapse months or years later. As well, the toxicity of conventional treatments can have devastating effects on the immune system and general health and wellbeing of the patient.

CAM protocols are directed toward finding the “root cause” of the illness. Once this cause is identified and addressed, the physical body can come naturally into harmony or balance. When the body is balanced and harmonious on all levels—body, mind, emotions and spirit-- it is strong and vital and the immune system can identify and destroy abnormal cells. For most of us who believe we are "cancer-free," our immune systems do this every single day with errant cells--and we remain healthy.

The human body was designed to be a marvelous self-healing, self-cleansing organism when it balanced and strong. This is our nature!

Some CAM treatments incorporate conventional treatments into their protocols, utilizing the best of both worlds so to speak. Whole body hyperthermia is one example of this. This is a process that is just beginning to be used in a much less intense form here in the U.S., but which is employed as a potent and powerful modality (sometimes to body temperatures ranging up to 106 degrees) outside this country, primarily in Europe and Mexico. Many times it is combined with very low dose chemotherapy, which is rendered significantly more powerful and effective against the cancer due to the enhanced effect with hyperthermia—yet with far fewer side effects. Cancer cells are more sensitive to changes in temperatures and tumors are known to break down or be critically weakened and the immune system enhanced in the presence of elevated body temperature. This is why, in a normal immune response, our bodies create fever in the presence of an infection.

After studying the policies, activities, and assets of the major U.S. cancer institutions, the investigative reporters Robert Houston and Gary Null concluded that these institutions had become self-perpetuating organizations whose survival depended on the state of no cure. "A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up ontributions to self-perpetuating charities....It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic reatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested....The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all." - Robert Houston and Gary Null

Here's a very interesting perspective from Dr. Norm Shealy, founder of the American Holistic Medical Assocation:

CHEMOTHERAPY FLUNKS! by C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Eva Segelov, Medical Oncologist at St. Vincent's Clinical School, Sydney, Australia (Aust Prescr 2006:29:2-3) suggested that "-the benefits of chemotherapy have been oversold." A literature review of 5 year survival for major cancers after cytotoxic chemotherapy revealed that the survival rate was increased a mere 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the U.S.!! The study did not look at quality of life. However, I have long quoted another study which stated that chemotherapy increased life an average of 4 months. Of course chemotherapy tortures most patients for 6+ months!! Personally, death is not a big threat to me but torture is! There is NO circumstance under which I would have chemotherapy. I recognize that there is a significant cure rate for Hodgkin's, some childhood leukemias and choriocarcinoma. Surgery and in some cases radiation are worth considering. And if you choose to have chemotherapy, I would strongly encourage all the safe alternatives to support you while undergoing therapy....

Want to read some very interesting quotes and statistics about the long term success of chemotherapy? Here's a chart published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Dec 2004:  The following was taken from the Oasis Wellness Center's website and was properly disclaimed at the bottom of their page:

"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.

"NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein.

"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

Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. 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 tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)

"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".)

"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 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.

"….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.

"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."—Diamond.

Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

"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 tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.

According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 - 1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of "statistically significant" results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also, Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca = 75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??----RD Hodgell, M.D.

"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.

"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.

"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.

"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.

John Robbins:

"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph Moss

"The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response, irrespective of survival. 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. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."---Abel.1990.

"For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."---General Accounting Office

"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible 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.

"He said, "I'm giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are killing them, and I can't stop it because they say the protocol's what's important." And I say, "But the patient's not doing well." They say, "The protocol's what's important, not the patient." And he said, "You can't believe what goes on in the name of medicine and science in this country." --Gary Null

From The Politics of Cancer---Samuel Epstein

That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer establishment---the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS).

That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%.

That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million.

That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer.

That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company."

That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer."

That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs.

That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that makes contributions to political parties.

That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal.

That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products suchfood, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action have not been taken.

That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice.