On Cancer Statistics
Introduction by Healing Cancer Naturally
You may have heard that statistics can be used (presented in such a way as) to "prove" anything. In fact, eminent alternative and conventional cancer treatment researcher Lothar Hirneise devotes much space to the fallacies and lying associated with conventional oncology's "success" statistics (a “success” may for instance involve just a few months lived beyond expectation with severe impairment in quality of life, or it may mean ”tumor response” when the truly important issue typically is the prevention of metastasis).
You may see conventional doctors argue in terms of "5 years survival", for instance (no matter if at death's door by then). This may have little to do with long-term survival and even less so with quality of life - it may in fact amount to little more than statistical jugglery since patients apparently "cured" by conventional approaches can suddenly fall seriously ill and even die of other diseases which can be directly traced to the toxic treatment(s) they received for their cancer (see Possible Serious Side Effects of Orthodox Cancer Treatment Doctors Might Not Have Told You About).
In official cancer statistics, such cases nevertheless will be chalked up as treatment successes - after all, the patient apparently had been cured of cancer (even if s/he later died of stroke or other sequelae of the toxic treatment they received)...
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year --- deaths/ 100,000
source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992
1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress?
Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.
Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone can dig this information up by going to any library reference section. But try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL that uses this chart. Try finding a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.
Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
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 John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985
The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: stomach - 5%, trachea, bronchus and lung - 5%, breast - 50%, oesophagus - 5%, large intestine - 22%, pancreas - 4%, liver - 2% ... [A]ttacking the tumor with the slash/burn/poison version of cancer therapy, and then pronouncing "cured" after the five year survival period has elapsed, has, of course, nothing remotely to do with the successful treatment of the disease. Patients who die from the effects of chemo or radio "therapy" after more than five years have passed are counted as cured. Being dead or dying does not exclude one from the figures of the cancer industry's creative statisticians.
British Anti-Vivisection Association
Approximately 1500 people (in Germany alone) die each day from cancer, treated to death in an atrocious manner with chemo and morphine ... According to the official statistics published by the German research centre on cancer in Heidelberg (Professor Abel), 98% of patients treated with chemo die within 7 years; 95% ... within 5 years. With the Germanische Neue Medizin however, 98% of those patients who did not previously receive treatments with chemo and morphine, survive. To deprive our patients of a 98% chance of survival is not worthy of medicine and criminal!
Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, founder of German New Medicine®
In several forms of cancer, survival of five years after a therapeutic procedure means little by itself, since a considerable proportion of untreated patients are known to survive five years or longer.
Homeburger, F. "The Biologic Basis of Cancer Management", Hoeber Harper N.Y.1957.
[M]y grandmother ... had breast cancer and did the radiations. Only several years after she finished the radiations, I learnt about the researchs (including one that was published in The Lancet), that one of the side effects of the radiations is stroke. That way, people who die of stroke do not enter into the statistics of cancer death. So we "beat cancer" they tell us, "the statistics shows less cancer deaths thanks to radiations" but more stroke deaths from this same treatment. They don't tell us that.
If I had known that before, my grandmother wouldn't have done the radiations. We did save her from the Tamoxifen which we knew causes cancer, and so she didn't agree to take it when the doctor gave it to her.
She also didn't agree to remove the lymph nodes because we knew it causes cancer to spread. But about the stroke from radiations, we didn't know, and not about alternatives.
My grandmother died of brain stroke. I would put money that it's from the radiation treatments she went through. Ignorance is our tragedy.
Doctors are too busy to dig into the statistics of cancer treatments, they assume that what they are taught at school or what is demonstrated in the pages of briefing journals is the best treatment. They cannot afford to suspect that these treatments are only the best for the pharmaceutical companies that influence their 'institutions of higher learning'.
Paul Winter, The Cancell Home Page
Durrant and Co-workers reported, in 1971 a "Comparison of Treatment Policies in Inoperable Bronchial (lung) Carcinoma". They randomly allocated 249 patients to four different groups, each treated differently. One such groups was â€“ the wait and see group. The other three groups were given radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or combination of both. The authors of the report felt that their results offered no evidence that immediate radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy leads to prolongation of survival or to prevention of incapacitating system in-patients with inoperable lung cancer.
After one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out 400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients. They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases.
Dr. Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., author of 114 books with translations into 23 languages selling in over 50 countries, excerpted from Dr. Vernon Coleman’s article Modern Medicine is not a science
Around 1965, at nearly every street corner in New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago I saw an advertisement displayed on huge billboards and public transportation, brightly lit at night. It read: "A pack a day keeps lung cancer away!" The ad said it was based on scientific research. It was very effective, and cigarette consumption rose to unimaginable heights. Dental amalgam is just as dangerous but has been played down since the turn of the [last] century when the first serious scientists recognized the toxic effect of this diabolical hg-metal-mix hailing from the time of alchemy.
Ernst Ebm on the abuse of "science" to further commercial interests, in his book Gift im Mund - Amalgam bedroht unsere Gesundheit (Poison In Our Mouth - Amalgam Threatens Our Health)