Originally published September 22 2015
Why don't oncologists refund cancer patients when their chemotherapy fails?
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) For being one of the only government-approved treatment options for cancer, chemotherapy has a pitifully dismal success rate. Chemotherapy fails upwards of 93 percent of the time depending on which study you look at; some studies show a failure rate of between 97 and 98 percent. Despite this, the cancer industry would have us all believe that it's the only tried-and-true lifeline for cancer patients.
Many oncologists chide the notion that Rick Simpson's "Phoenix Tears" cannabis oil or the Gerson Institute's Gerson Therapy have any therapeutic potential whatsoever in mitigating cancer. Yet at the very same time, these same oncologists will scare patients into signing up for chemotherapy regimens even when their chances of survival on this antiquated protocol are next to nil.
A 1994 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology reveals a shocking truth about chemotherapy that the cancer industry refuses to acknowledge. Among 73 patients treated for a type of testicular cancer marked by relapsed extragonadal nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (GCTs) at Indiana University between 1976 and 1993, only five survived. The rest either died of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related toxicity, or they remained alive with cancer.
At best, this translates to a 7 percent success rate for chemotherapy as a treatment for testicular cancer.
What about the 28 patients in the study who received high-dose chemotherapy along with autologous bone marrow transplants (ABMT) at some point during their treatment? None of these patients were cured of their disease, according to the paper, which translates to a 0 percent success rate.
A subsequent meta-analysis conducted by researchers from Australia looked at the five-year survival rates of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and their conclusions were even more damning. Entitled The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies, the paper estimated chemotherapy to be between 2.1 and 2.3 percent effective in treating adult cancers.
Here's what the authors of this paper had to say about the effectiveness of chemotherapy, based on their research:
"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."
Average chemotherapy costs for three-month treatment exceed $20,000, study finds If you were to substitute any other cancer treatment modality for chemotherapy, the mainstream medical system would declare it to be utter quackery based on these findings. A 97 percent failure rate, the oncology industry would declare, suggests that X, Y, or Z treatment doesn't work.
However, since the 97 percent failure rate applies to chemotherapy, you won't hear a word about it. Why not? Chemotherapy is big business, bringing in billions of dollars a year for cancer doctors. A study conducted by Avalere Health in 2012 estimates the average treatment costs for a cancer patient undergoing conventional chemotherapy to be upwards of $20,000 for three to four months of care.
Multiply this out by the total number of cancer patients in the developed world and you'll quickly see why this exceptionally profitable, multi-billion dollar cash cow is never questioned or reevaluated in terms of its safety and effectiveness. The stakes are just too high!
"Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of," says Dr. Peter Glidden, B.S., N.D., author of The M.D. Emperor Has No Clothes. "The only reason chemotherapy is used because doctors make money from it. Period. It doesn't work."
Dr. Glidden can be seen in a five-minute video clip explaining the fraud of chemotherapy.
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml