As defenders of chemotherapy will acknowledge, it’s easy to find fault with it.
Since cancer is affecting every person one way or another–self, family member or friend–and it is the number one cause of death in Canada, we have every right to question what type of treatments are offered to us and how effective they are.
What I do at this website normally is try to reveal what kind of world we are actually living in–a world run by propagandists after the pattern of Edward Bernays.
In recent years, in Canada, we have been offered euthanasia through the hospital system–instead of treatment. That was sold to people through entertainment especially and other propaganda, along with the idea that we’re living in a humane system. No, it is not humane. It is Brave New World where people aren’t encouraged to live very long. That’s what people belief is “progress.” It is seen as progress by the elites and they are happy we agree with them.
In any case, here is a study abstract that challenges the effectiveness of chemotherapy from 2004:
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies
by Graeme Morgan, Robyn Ward, Michael Barton
The full study can be obtained from the website.
The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.
Materials and methods
We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. . . .
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.
As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.
The page includes their references.
Anyway, so there is some conflicting information for you.
Do other studies contradict this?
Is earlier information dismissed automatically because it’s not up to date? I think it is a mistake to dismiss information just because it is older. The assumption many make is that the world is always progressing.
In that case, it would be a less corrupt world as each day goes by, but it’s not. Read what the Lancet had to say about corruption in science publications: http://canadianliberty.com/power-reality-journal-issue-4/#What
By the way, the World Economic Forum just told us that we have a totally new economic system under COVID-19. This is the great reset, so I guess that’s the end of gradual progress. Everything is going to be perfect now.
For some context, I dug up some articles. This one (mainstream article) is helpful in understanding cancer treatments and terminology: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326031 Survival and chemotherapy success rates for various cancers. It shows you the survival rates for different types of cancer, but I don’t think it is clear about how much chemotherapy contributes.
They use this report for 2016-2017 for their statistics.
My own belief is that good nutrition (needs definition), an understanding of the causes of cancer, and a positive, supportive environment would have to be critical factors in surviving.
I really don’t think the economic shutdown will help with any of that.
And it probably won’t help us pay for the existing treatments either:
I had to look up what I had heard about the nature of the chemicals involved:
. . . Alkylating agents are the oldest group of chemotherapeutics in use today. Originally derived from mustard gas used in World War I, there are now many types of alkylating agents in use. They are so named because of their ability to alkylate many molecules, including proteins, RNA and DNA. This ability to bind covalently to DNA via their alkyl group is the primary cause for their anti-cancer effects. . ..
. . . The subtypes of alkylating agents are the nitrogen mustards, nitrosoureas, tetrazines, aziridines, cisplatins and derivatives, and non-classical alkylating agents. Nitrogen mustards include mechlorethamine, cyclophosphamide, melphalan, chlorambucil, ifosfamide and busulfan. . . .
Nitrogen mustards are cytotoxic organic compounds with the chloroethylamine (Cl(CH2)2NR2) functional group. Although originally produced as chemical warfare agents, they were the first chemotherapeutic agents for treatment of cancer. Nitrogen mustards are nonspecific DNA alkylating agents. . . .