CHEMOTHERAPY, AN INTERESTING CHOICE

[Guest guest]

Chemotherapy,an Interesting ChoiceJon BarronMark Twain quoted Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England,as saying: "There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damnlies, and statistics." That statement is even more true (anddangerous) when applied to medical studies. One example is the recentOxford University study published in The Lancet which touts theeffectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supportsthe use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen forfive years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third.Very impressive, until you realize that you've just been "statistic-ed."As presented, the newspaper cites studies proving the efficacy oftamoxifen that consistently read something like "The National CancerInstitute's Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a49 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women whotook tamoxifen for five years."That's stunning. If your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cutyour chances of getting breast cancer by 49%, would there be anyquestion in your mind on whether or not to use it? Not in mine – atleast until I talked to Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past thestatistics, the truth is that according to the study, your odds ofgetting breast cancer without using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and withtamoxifen it dropped to .68%. That represents a 49% differencebetween the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-halfof one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.And for that meager sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we nowneed to consider that tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus,ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins foundthat tamoxifen promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of theWorld Health Organization, the International Agency for Research onCancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. Inanother abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifendeveloped endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs,130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major bloodvessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss.Other permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, cornealchanges, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the halfpercent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by usingtamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and lifethreatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastlydifferent from the 49% "statistic-ed" improvement cited in thestudies – and hardly worth the increased risk.Once you look behind the numbers, is it any wonder the "war oncancer" continues to fail so miserably? The problem is that thedoctors themselves believe the statistically manipulated numbers theyfeed to the public. And yet, the general trend is undeniable. Thingsare not getting better. The incidence rate of cancer has explodedfrom around one in five hundred in 1900 to approximately one in twotoday. And for every statistical blip downward in selected cancerssuch as breast and prostate cancer (after years of soaring incidenceand mortality, mind you), there is a significant jump in "new," evenmore deadly cancers such as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.Chemotherapy: The Good, the Bad, and the UglyFor those of you who are new to the debate, let me explain some ofthe pros and cons of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a highprobability that you or someone you know will have to face thedecision on how to treat cancer.Before we get into how chemotherapy works, it's probably worth alittle digression to talk about its history. The first drug used forcancer chemotherapy was not originally intended for that purpose.Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War Iand was studied further during World War II. During a militaryoperation in World War II, a group of people were accidentallyexposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low whiteblood cell counts. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged therapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect oncancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advancedlymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drugby vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Theirimprovement, although temporary, was remarkable. That experiencestarted researchers studying other substances that might have similareffects against cancer.Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells anywhere in the body,including cells that have broken off from a main tumor and traveledthrough the blood or lymph systems to other parts of the body. Manydoctors have successfully slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapyafter a tumor has been surgically removed . How does it work?Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells inour body that multiply the most rapidly, which is how the majority ofcancer cells perform. So, if your cancer cells are rapidlymultiplying, you may find chemotherapy effective.The major disadvantage to chemotherapy is that the drugs don't justkill the cancer cells that are dividing, but any dividing cell,including the multitude of healthy cells all over the body caught inthe act of dividing. For those whose "healthy" cells are multiplyingfaster than the cancer cells, there isn't even a theoretical chanceof success. This explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to4% of cancers – primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute LymphocyticLeukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.For the majority of people who have healthy cell division, you mayend up killing the body before the cancer. For instance, there is ahigh probability that certain fast multiplying immune system cellsincluding our T and B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to ourbody's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that arise as aresult of the treatment. Other cells that grow fast are cells of thebone marrow that produce blood cells, cells in the stomach andintestines, and cells of the hair follicles, which is why a patient'shair usually falls out.In either event, the drug's objective is to poison the system—creating horrendous pain and illness often worse than the diseaseitself. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and causeblood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown intoconvulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, andprogressive weakness. Some drugs can slough the entire lining of theintestines. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. Thebrain loses memory. The hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing areimpaired. The kidneys are damaged. Sores appear in the mouth andthroat. The body bleeds and bruises easily and can't fightinfections. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agonyfor the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer ratherthan to continue treatment. It makes you wonder how most people diewhen they report the rising cancer death statistics.It's especially telling when a number of surveys over the years showthat most chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves orrecommend it for their families. Today's chemotherapy drugs are themost toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. Infact, personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions toavoid exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standardreference for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handlingcytotoxic agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medicalpersonnel who work around the chemicals. In addition, increasedconcerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies]continue to be investigated.The sad part is that we accept these types of results, feeling thatwe have no choice in the matter. We submissively believe the medicalcommunity's statement that chemotherapy "improves quality of life"even though most doctors find this absurd. Some doctors, such as Dr.Ulrich Abel, go so far as to state that there is no scientificevidence for chemotherapy being able to extend the lives of patientssuffering from 80% of all cancers.Bottom line, orthodox chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, andcarcinogenic. As death rates keep going up, so why then do themajority of doctors and oncologists still push chemotherapy?First, effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDAdefines an "effective" drug as one that achieves a 50% or morereduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of casesthere is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when adoctor says "effective" to a cancer patient, it does not mean itcures cancer—only temporary shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeliagain?)Secondly, most doctors just don't know what else to do. They facepatients that they feel have hopeless conditions and justify thecontinual loss of life brought about by these drugs because it's theonly alternative they know (along with surgery and radiation). Theyrefer to this stage not as therapy, but as experimentation, which isbetter than telling a patient there is no hope. As for oncologists,they have devoted countless hours to the understanding of poisonous,deadly compounds and how to administer these drugs. This too is allthey know. They all want to help cancer patients, but they don't haveother options in their arsenal – certainly not options that come fromoutside the medical fraternity.Third, and commonly seen in all major industries, as long as drugcompanies and the cancer industry see profits, there will be littlemotivation to change. It is not surprising that the cancer industryturns over in excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few whosought alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss oflicensure, professional smearing, and ostracism. One such person isDr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, who stated at a recent National Institute of Healthmeeting, about chemotherapy: "[it's] a marvelous opportunity forrampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethicalprinciples can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get atphysicians and prescribers."And last but not least, in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapyabsolutely does help – which is not to say that other approacheswouldn't work as well, or better. But it is, in fact, this minimalsuccess rate that fuels the continued use of the therapy. Based onthese occasional successes, doctors will often pressure patients toopt for the therapy even when it has little chance of success intheir particular cases.Also, it is worth noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely fromcancer to cancer – sometimes improving "short-term" survivability byas much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example,the statistical chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lungcancer are less than 1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure theirpatients into utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective anddebilitating treatment. And on top of everything else, the successrate for chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likelyto be effective with the young who have strong immune systems,dropping to about 50/50 by age 50. And by 50/50, I don't mean thatit's effective 50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call asto whether doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option interms of survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically betteroff doing nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.Keep in mind that whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, noone can ever claim it addresses the cause of cancer. It merelyattacks the symptom. No one, even the most jaded doctor in the world,claims that people get cancer because they're suffering from achemotherapy deficiency.Obviously, there is only so much we can do with the current state ofaffairs and we should not expect the industry to change any timesoon. However, we do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comesto our personal health and wellness due to ignorance, money, andbureaucrats.Solution -- Take an Active RoleI always encourage people to take an active role in their health, andthis is even more important when you are dealing with a catastrophicillness such as cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and researchyour specific type of cancer to understand both the conventional andnon-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look forstrategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the bodyto heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons fromthe Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fightingcancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoidcancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy atwww.jonbarron.org. And while you're there, be sure to check out thenewsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or whatconclusion you draw from any study or statistic. Know the motivebehind the study. Don't be "statistic-ed." In the end, we are theones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent tolook at the details.And one final note. There is more hope than you can possibly imaginein terms of dealing with cancer. There are at least 18 differentpeoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer – many of thesecannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture.Do genetics play a role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures arecancer free, it makes the environmental and lifestyle connectionsundeniable – especially when those cancer rates change once they movefrom their original environment. That means that for most of us, wecan dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer inthe first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying ourenvironmental and lifestyle circumstances.

[Guest guest]



I would suppose that if one were to accept the statistic a woman would definitely want to be taking tamoxifen as a regular part of her diet. After all............

What a bunch of BS. I think that the truth would be found in a consideration more along the lines of "If a woman took tamoxifen for breast cancer, and was still alive after 5 years of taking it, she would have found that she had reduced the breast cancer death rate by 1/3." But, again, I don't know a woman alive who, if having breast cancer, would be interested in reducing the statistic by 1/3 rather than just saving her own life, and maybe even her breasts. Taking the drug for 5 years, and living.....of course that reduces the statistic. The people who die raises the statistic. But the point is not the statistic. The point IS whether or not the individual woman lives or dies.

 

Ed

 

-

MRSCM4871

medicalconspiracies

Cc:

Friday, November 04, 2005 8:33 AM

CHEMOTHERAPY, AN INTERESTING CHOICE

 

Chemotherapy,an Interesting ChoiceJon BarronMark Twain quoted Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England,as saying: "There are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damnlies, and statistics." That statement is even more true (anddangerous) when applied to medical studies. One example is the recentOxford University study published in The Lancet which touts theeffectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supportsthe use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen forfive years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third.Very impressive, until you realize that you've just been "statistic-ed."As presented, the newspaper cites studies proving the efficacy oftamoxifen that consistently read something like "The National CancerInstitute's Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a49 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women whotook tamoxifen for five years."That's stunning. If your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cutyour chances of getting breast cancer by 49%, would there be anyquestion in your mind on whether or not to use it? Not in mine – atleast until I talked to Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past thestatistics, the truth is that according to the study, your odds ofgetting breast cancer without using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and withtamoxifen it dropped to .68%. That represents a 49% differencebetween the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-halfof one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.And for that meager sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we nowneed to consider that tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus,ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins foundthat tamoxifen promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of theWorld Health Organization, the International Agency for Research onCancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. Inanother abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifendeveloped endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs,130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major bloodvessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss.Other permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, cornealchanges, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the halfpercent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by usingtamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and lifethreatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastlydifferent from the 49% "statistic-ed" improvement cited in thestudies – and hardly worth the increased risk.Once you look behind the numbers, is it any wonder the "war oncancer" continues to fail so miserably? The problem is that thedoctors themselves believe the statistically manipulated numbers theyfeed to the public. And yet, the general trend is undeniable. Thingsare not getting better. The incidence rate of cancer has explodedfrom around one in five hundred in 1900 to approximately one in twotoday. And for every statistical blip downward in selected cancerssuch as breast and prostate cancer (after years of soaring incidenceand mortality, mind you), there is a significant jump in "new," evenmore deadly cancers such as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.Chemotherapy: The Good, the Bad, and the UglyFor those of you who are new to the debate, let me explain some ofthe pros and cons of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a highprobability that you or someone you know will have to face thedecision on how to treat cancer.Before we get into how chemotherapy works, it's probably worth alittle digression to talk about its history. The first drug used forcancer chemotherapy was not originally intended for that purpose.Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War Iand was studied further during World War II. During a militaryoperation in World War II, a group of people were accidentallyexposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low whiteblood cell counts. It was reasoned that an agent that damaged therapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect oncancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advancedlymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drugby vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas. Theirimprovement, although temporary, was remarkable. That experiencestarted researchers studying other substances that might have similareffects against cancer.Chemotherapy is used to kill cancer cells anywhere in the body,including cells that have broken off from a main tumor and traveledthrough the blood or lymph systems to other parts of the body. Manydoctors have successfully slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapyafter a tumor has been surgically removed . How does it work?Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells inour body that multiply the most rapidly, which is how the majority ofcancer cells perform. So, if your cancer cells are rapidlymultiplying, you may find chemotherapy effective.The major disadvantage to chemotherapy is that the drugs don't justkill the cancer cells that are dividing, but any dividing cell,including the multitude of healthy cells all over the body caught inthe act of dividing. For those whose "healthy" cells are multiplyingfaster than the cancer cells, there isn't even a theoretical chanceof success. This explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to4% of cancers – primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute LymphocyticLeukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.For the majority of people who have healthy cell division, you mayend up killing the body before the cancer. For instance, there is ahigh probability that certain fast multiplying immune system cellsincluding our T and B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to ourbody's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that arise as aresult of the treatment. Other cells that grow fast are cells of thebone marrow that produce blood cells, cells in the stomach andintestines, and cells of the hair follicles, which is why a patient'shair usually falls out.In either event, the drug's objective is to poison the system—creating horrendous pain and illness often worse than the diseaseitself. The toxins attack healthy, dividing blood cells and causeblood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown intoconvulsions causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, andprogressive weakness. Some drugs can slough the entire lining of theintestines. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. Thebrain loses memory. The hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing areimpaired. The kidneys are damaged. Sores appear in the mouth andthroat. The body bleeds and bruises easily and can't fightinfections. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agonyfor the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer ratherthan to continue treatment. It makes you wonder how most people diewhen they report the rising cancer death statistics.It's especially telling when a number of surveys over the years showthat most chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves orrecommend it for their families. Today's chemotherapy drugs are themost toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. Infact, personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions toavoid exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standardreference for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handlingcytotoxic agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medicalpersonnel who work around the chemicals. In addition, increasedconcerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies]continue to be investigated.The sad part is that we accept these types of results, feeling thatwe have no choice in the matter. We submissively believe the medicalcommunity's statement that chemotherapy "improves quality of life"even though most doctors find this absurd. Some doctors, such as Dr.Ulrich Abel, go so far as to state that there is no scientificevidence for chemotherapy being able to extend the lives of patientssuffering from 80% of all cancers.Bottom line, orthodox chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, andcarcinogenic. As death rates keep going up, so why then do themajority of doctors and oncologists still push chemotherapy?First, effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDAdefines an "effective" drug as one that achieves a 50% or morereduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of casesthere is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life. So, when adoctor says "effective" to a cancer patient, it does not mean itcures cancer—only temporary shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeliagain?)Secondly, most doctors just don't know what else to do. They facepatients that they feel have hopeless conditions and justify thecontinual loss of life brought about by these drugs because it's theonly alternative they know (along with surgery and radiation). Theyrefer to this stage not as therapy, but as experimentation, which isbetter than telling a patient there is no hope. As for oncologists,they have devoted countless hours to the understanding of poisonous,deadly compounds and how to administer these drugs. This too is allthey know. They all want to help cancer patients, but they don't haveother options in their arsenal – certainly not options that come fromoutside the medical fraternity.Third, and commonly seen in all major industries, as long as drugcompanies and the cancer industry see profits, there will be littlemotivation to change. It is not surprising that the cancer industryturns over in excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few whosought alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss oflicensure, professional smearing, and ostracism. One such person isDr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, who stated at a recent National Institute of Healthmeeting, about chemotherapy: "[it's] a marvelous opportunity forrampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethicalprinciples can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get atphysicians and prescribers."And last but not least, in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapyabsolutely does help – which is not to say that other approacheswouldn't work as well, or better. But it is, in fact, this minimalsuccess rate that fuels the continued use of the therapy. Based onthese occasional successes, doctors will often pressure patients toopt for the therapy even when it has little chance of success intheir particular cases.Also, it is worth noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely fromcancer to cancer – sometimes improving "short-term" survivability byas much as 50%; but also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example,the statistical chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lungcancer are less than 1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure theirpatients into utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective anddebilitating treatment. And on top of everything else, the successrate for chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likelyto be effective with the young who have strong immune systems,dropping to about 50/50 by age 50. And by 50/50, I don't mean thatit's effective 50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call asto whether doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option interms of survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically betteroff doing nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.Keep in mind that whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, noone can ever claim it addresses the cause of cancer. It merelyattacks the symptom. No one, even the most jaded doctor in the world,claims that people get cancer because they're suffering from achemotherapy deficiency.Obviously, there is only so much we can do with the current state ofaffairs and we should not expect the industry to change any timesoon. However, we do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comesto our personal health and wellness due to ignorance, money, andbureaucrats.Solution -- Take an Active RoleI always encourage people to take an active role in their health, andthis is even more important when you are dealing with a catastrophicillness such as cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and researchyour specific type of cancer to understand both the conventional andnon-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look forstrategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the bodyto heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons fromthe Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fightingcancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoidcancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy atwww.jonbarron.org. And while you're there, be sure to check out thenewsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or whatconclusion you draw from any study or statistic. Know the motivebehind the study. Don't be "statistic-ed." In the end, we are theones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent tolook at the details.And one final note. There is more hope than you can possibly imaginein terms of dealing with cancer. There are at least 18 differentpeoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer – many of thesecannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture.Do genetics play a role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures arecancer free, it makes the environmental and lifestyle connectionsundeniable – especially when those cancer rates change once they movefrom their original environment. That means that for most of us, wecan dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer inthe first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying ourenvironmental and lifestyle circumstances.