Nexus - 1104 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

How SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS? SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOX ARE How CANCER TREATMENTS? Research studies and unbiased statistical analysis show that there is no scientific basis for orthodox cancer treatments like radical surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy and that these treatments often do more harm than good. lhe medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start immediately on a sci- entific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority. How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies for simple health problems, but for something as serious as cancer you may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer treatment. In this article I have assembled some little-known facts about the science behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success—expressed as a five-year survival rate—is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is basically unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect. In support of my position, I offer the following key statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications. "Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left untouched [author’s emphasis]." In other words, early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that improves the survival statistics. "Also, it does not matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same." This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances, otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy. Researchers have said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure.’ Furthermore, there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this, they would most likely refuse surgery, In 1993, the editor of the Lancet pointed out that, despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remained unchanged. He acknowledged that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words, not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time, he rejected the view of those who believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. He asked, "Would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?" Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is "Breast cancer: have we lost our way?" Basically, all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same /ow long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, MD, a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to accelerating the spread of cancer by stimulating the formation of metastases in other parts of the body? JUNE — JULY 2004 NEXUS * 25 by Walter Last © 2004 www.nexusmagazine.com