The War On Cancer Is A Bust - No Real Progress And Actually A Regress

[burtlancast]

Abstract 4658: Use of a defined oleander extract by advanced cancer patients: Case reports on toxicity and tumor-related outcomes

Impressive.
But i can't get my hands on the entire article.

 

[burtlancast]

An excellent resume of the evidence chemo does more harm than good by Jason Vale, who cured his cancer with laetrile

Chemotherapy Report – Apricots

 

[burtlancast]

Here's a quote often repeated in alternative circles that i've tried to trace back without success: damning if true.

"In (September) 1993, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published its
review of the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. The authors found
that chemotherapy benefited only 7 percent of patients—it resulted in a "durable response" in 3 percent and a "significantly long survival period" in 4 percent.

The latest evaluation of the death rate from cancer was published in June 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In this analysis, the National Cancer Institute found that any overall increase in survival rates is mostly due to earlier cancer diagnosis, rather than to advances in treatment. Since the five-year survival rate is computed from the moment of diagnosis, early diagnosis makes it look like people are living longer—but in fact, they are only learning that they have cancer earlier.

Of course, some experts disagree with this conclusion, but if you, like
me, find these criticisms, findings, and issues disturbing, I encourage you
to discuss them with your oncologist in relation to your individual disease
and prognosis. And you need to better understand what chemo can or can't
do for you."

Coping with Chemotherapy

Either a legit quote or a banana peel for people to cite without evidence.

Maybe @haidut could get access ?

 

[ecstatichamster]

Here’s one you may have seen

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. - PubMed - NCBI

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton M.
Author information
Abstract
AIMS:
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 total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS:
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.

CONCLUSION:
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.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Here’s a good one

Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Breast Irradiation Following Lumpectomy and Axillary Disection for Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: Although the conservation management of breast cancer has become a routine method of treatment in most centers, there is still considerable controversy surrounding the ultimate minimum treatment required for node-negative breast cancer to achieve adequate local control.

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess the value of breast irradiation in reducing breast relapse following conservation surgery for node-negative breast cancer. We attempted to define low-risk groups of women for breast and distant site relapse (i.e., recurrence outside the breast) who might be spared breast irradiation or adjuvant systemic therapy.

Methods: Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive radiation therapy or no radiation therapy following lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node-negative breast cancer.

Results: Breast irradiation reduced relapse in the breast from 25.7% in the controls to 5.5% in the irradiated patients. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (median follow-up, 43 months). A low-risk group (<5%chance of relapse in the breast without irradiation) could not be defined. Tumor size (>2 cm), age (<40 years), and poor nuclear grade were important predictors for breast relapse. Age (<50 years) and poor nuclear grade were important predictors for mortality. The presence of ductal carcinoma in situ did not predict breast relapse. Conclusions: Breast irradiation significantly reduces breast relapse, but it does not influence survival. Important predictors of breast relapse are age, tumour size, and nuclear grade predict survival. Implications: Further follow-up may define an acceptable low-risk gropu for breast relapse. Until then, we recommend that all patients receive breast irradiation. Systemic adjuvant theraphy should be considered for patients with poor nuclear gradetumors. [J Natl Cancer inst 84:683–689, 1992]

 

[burtlancast]

Here's an incredible account for survival from peritoneal carcinosis, always fatal at 100% when following ovarian cancer, specifically High Grade Serous Carcinoma (HGSC) of the ovaries and uterus. due to the BRCA1+ gene mutation (the Angelina Jolie mutation).

Here she is in 2010 running for congress in her state.


This lady used GcMaf to cure herself.

The kicker is she refused chemo after witnessing her sister dying 3 months prior from exactly the same cancer after having spent 700.000 dollars for chemo that was known to be useless through +100 cancer scientific papers.

Her sister died from hemorragia after a ruptured esophagus during vomiting induced by chemo.

Newman, who is herself a former nurse, wrote a book about her family ordeal and says 50% of the people die from chemo side effects.

She was diagnosed 3 months after witnessing her sister die of the same cancer, refused of course to follow the same regimen, and went instead to the internet to find answers.

She hit the jackpot as GcMaf was provided free of charge by a British firm controlled by MI5 conman David Noakes, who in my opinion plays a double game looking to destroy the credibility of this incredible remedy devised 30 years ago by a Japanese scientist.

People are waking up to the chemo scam and internet has become a game changer.

 

[Braveheart]

Impressive.
But i can't get my hands on the entire article.

Is this the notorius "suicide" plant!?

 

[burtlancast]

Is this the notorius "suicide" plant!?

I can't say if people use it to kill themselves, but it's a notoriously poisonous plant for the heart muscle.

But death is far from being instantaneous: it might take over 24 hours.

 

[burtlancast]

This lady just diagnosed with terminal breast cancer refused emergency chemo and radio advised by her doctors and used Rick Simpson cannabis oil to cure herself.

 

[jondoeuk]

Here’s a good one

Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Breast Irradiation Following Lumpectomy and Axillary Disection for Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: Although the conservation management of breast cancer has become a routine method of treatment in most centers, there is still considerable controversy surrounding the ultimate minimum treatment required for node-negative breast cancer to achieve adequate local control.

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess the value of breast irradiation in reducing breast relapse following conservation surgery for node-negative breast cancer. We attempted to define low-risk groups of women for breast and distant site relapse (i.e., recurrence outside the breast) who might be spared breast irradiation or adjuvant systemic therapy.

Methods: Eight hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive radiation therapy or no radiation therapy following lumpectomy and axillary dissection for node-negative breast cancer.

Results: Breast irradiation reduced relapse in the breast from 25.7% in the controls to 5.5% in the irradiated patients. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (median follow-up, 43 months). A low-risk group (<5%chance of relapse in the breast without irradiation) could not be defined. Tumor size (>2 cm), age (<40 years), and poor nuclear grade were important predictors for breast relapse. Age (<50 years) and poor nuclear grade were important predictors for mortality. The presence of ductal carcinoma in situ did not predict breast relapse. Conclusions: Breast irradiation significantly reduces breast relapse, but it does not influence survival. Important predictors of breast relapse are age, tumour size, and nuclear grade predict survival. Implications: Further follow-up may define an acceptable low-risk gropu for breast relapse. Until then, we recommend that all patients receive breast irradiation. Systemic adjuvant theraphy should be considered for patients with poor nuclear gradetumors. [J Natl Cancer inst 84:683–689, 1992]

That is discussed here https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemotherapy/

 

[jondoeuk]

The amygdalin consists of one molecule of benzaldehyde, one molecule of hydrocyanide and two glucose molecules. The first two molecules are toxic compounds, but in combination with glucose molecules they have no toxic activity. The vitamin B17 molecule is cleaved by two enzymes: β-glucosidase and rodenase. β-glucosidase is present in all cells. The concentration of this enzyme is higher in malignant than in healthy cells. Unlike β-glucosidase, rodenase is present only in healthy cells. In contact with the β-glucosidase enzyme, the release of sugars and toxic benzaldehyde and hydrocyanide occurs, which together destroy carcinogenic cells. Since cancer cells use glucose for their growth and development and contain 18 times more sugar receptors than healthy, by intake of vitamin B17 they absorb not only glucose but also toxic molecules and thus die out. Since the malignant cells do not contain rodenase, they can not be defended. If it reaches a healthy cell, the amygdalin is broken down into non-toxic thiocyanates under the effect of rodenase, and this does not allow the release of toxic components. Practically, poisonous hydrocyanide and benzaldehyde are formed only at the site of cancer, in the tumor cell, while not damaging healthy cell.

It was tested and shown not to work A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198201283060410

Back in 2015 a systematic review by Cochrane found: ''The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.'' Laetrile treatment for cancer. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[yomama]

Interesting thread. As a side note about apricots kernel, keep in mind that world famous original Amaretti di Saronno cookies are made of sugar, "armelline" (apricots kernel) and eggs. I never heard of anyone poisoned or died by them. I was used to eat tons of them when young.

 

[achillea]

It was tested and shown not to work A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198201283060410

Back in 2015 a systematic review by Cochrane found: ''The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.'' Laetrile treatment for cancer. - PubMed - NCBI

In the 70's Dr Seguira , a world renowned oncology researcher for Sloan Kettering did extensive research on Laetrile and said not once but twice that it was the best anti cancer product he had ever seen. Of course he got fired because it was not the outcome they wanted.

 

[burtlancast]

It was tested and shown not to work A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198201283060410

Back in 2015 a systematic review by Cochrane found: ''The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.'' Laetrile treatment for cancer. - PubMed - NCBI

The medical establishment back in the 70's falsified the results of the laetrile trials: the evidence is so overwhelming Amazon prime attempted to censor this doc.

And Peter Gotzche from the Cochrane review has been expulsed from his own organisation a few years ago.

 

[TreasureVibe]

Mice with aggressive cancers were injected with raw garlic extract and it completely cured their cancer in this study, while ingestion of raw garlic extract did not:

A novel therapeutic anticancer property of raw garlic extract via injection but not ingestion

Opinions?

 

[burtlancast]

Mice with aggressive cancers were injected with raw garlic extract and it completely cured their cancer in this study, while ingestion of raw garlic extract did not:

A novel therapeutic anticancer property of raw garlic extract via injection but not ingestion

Opinions?

OMG!

Garlic chemotherapy !

"In cell culture, raw garlic extract killed (by apoptosis) a wide variety of different cancer cells regardless of species of origin and cell types."

Is it just me, or have we finally stumbled at last on the definitive cure for cancer ?

 

[akgrrrl]

This makes sense to me, very exciting. I know a naturopath who fled to ecuador that has been quietly putting high grade frankincense distillations in breast cancer patients via IV. He has told me his data is 90% cure rate since 2014.

 

[ecstatichamster]

This makes sense to me, very exciting. I know a naturopath who fled to ecuador that has been quietly putting high grade frankincense distillations in breast cancer patients via IV. He has told me his data is 90% cure rate since 2014.

Wow. Very inspiring.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Mice with aggressive cancers were injected with raw garlic extract and it completely cured their cancer in this study, while ingestion of raw garlic extract did not:

A novel therapeutic anticancer property of raw garlic extract via injection but not ingestion

Opinions?

Astonishing

 

[burtlancast]

And how come this hasn't been front page news on every paper and TV outlet for the past year ?

It's from 2018 already.