Επιστημονικές Ερευνες κατά της Χημειοθεραπείας

[Rose]

Περισσότεροι από 100 γιατροί, ασθενείς-επιζώντες, ερευνητές, και εξέχοντες επιστήμονες από 20 χώρες, ενώνουν δυνάμεις στην καλύτερη και πιο ολοκληρωμένη δουλειά που έγινε ποτέ για τον καρκίνο.

Η αληθινή ιστορία της χημειοθεραπείας και το φαρμακευτικό μονοπώλιο - Επεισόδιο 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-O2pVQ2uU

Επεισόδιο 2 - Μαστός, Ορμόνες, Δερματικός, Επιγενετική Αιθέρια Έλαια
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7qyX4Y0lIw

Επεισόδιο 3 - Αντικαρκινικοί Ιοί, Καρκινικά Βλαστοκύτταρα, Μεταλλαγμένα, Χυμοί
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIzyRkqJJ64

Επεισόδιο 4 - Διεγερσιτοξίνες, το φαρμακείο της φύσης & θεραπεία με ήχο και φως
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0hRmaNgwvg

Επεισόδιο 5 - Τυφλά σημεία του Καρκίνου, Τοξικά Εμβόλια, Ομοιοπαθητική, Συναισθήματα
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VavNbOZ-cac

Επεισόδιο 6 - Φαινόμενο NOCEBO, θεραπευτικά εμβόλια, προηγμένη αποτοξίνωση, Γερμανική κλίνική
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_mLj2WlCw

Επεισόδιο 7 - Η Καθαρή Ηλεκτρική ενέργεια, το μοναδικό Ύδωρ, το φυσικό φώς, συνδυασμένες υπερ-τροφές
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZA2gmIH4wc

ΕΠΕΙΣΟΔΙΟ 8 - Η Κάνναβη, φυσικοί επιγενετικοί διακόπτες, τα πεπτίδια, μικροθρεπτικά συστατικά
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1NYl3nCYk

ΕΠΕΙΣΟΔΙΟ 9 - Οι νικητές του καρκίνου και οι ιστορίες επιτυχίας τους
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_QK9qDe7b0

Ερωτήσεις - Απαντήσεις Μέρος 1/2 - "Η Αλήθεια για τον Καρκίνο, Μια Παγκόσμια Αναζήτηση"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYQnoCs73ak

Ερωτήσεις - Απαντήσεις Μέρος 2/2 - "Η Αλήθεια για τον Καρκίνο, Μια Παγκόσμια Αναζήτηση""
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3WSWOKgn40

[Rose]

https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(11)00447-8

ARTICLE| VOLUME 21, ISSUE 1, P66-81, JANUARY 17, 2012
Pericyte Depletion Results in Hypoxia-Associated Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition and Metastasis Mediated by Met Signaling Pathway
Vesselina G. Cooke 5
Valerie S. LeBleu 5
Doruk Keskin
Aline Damascena
Ricardo R. Brentani
Raghu Kalluri

Summary
The functional role of pericytes in cancer progression remains unknown. Clinical studies suggest that low numbers of vessel-associated pericytes correlated with a drop in overall survival of patients with invasive breast cancer. Using genetic mouse models or pharmacological inhibitors, pericyte depletion suppressed tumor growth but enhanced metastasis. Pericyte depletion was further associated with increased hypoxia, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and Met receptor activation. Silencing of Twist or use of a Met inhibitor suppressed hypoxia and EMT/Met-driven metastasis. In addition, poor pericyte coverage coupled with high Met expression in cancer cells speculates the worst prognosis for patients with invasive breast cancer. Collectively, our study suggests that pericytes within the primary tumor microenvironment likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis.

Highlights
Pericyte loss increases tumor hypoxia, HIF1α and Met expression, EMT, and metastasis
Pharmacological targeting of pericytes or Met inhibits EMT and reduces metastasis
Reduced pericytes and Met overexpression correlate with poor patient prognosis
Cancer cell-autonomous program and stromal alterations combine to support metastasis

Significance
Pericyte coverage and its relation to metastasis are poorly understood. This study suggests that pericyte coverage on tumor vasculature serves as a key negative regulator of metastasis. Clinical studies suggest that cancer patients with low numbers of vessel-associated pericytes exhibit a high mortality rate. Cancer cell autonomous changes cooperate with stromal changes to determine the rate of cancer progression and metastasis.

Introduction
Metastasis is the leading cause of death in cancer patients. The formation of secondary tumors or metastasis is greatly influenced by multifaceted tumor-stroma interactions, in which stromal components of the tumor microenvironment can influence the behavior of the cancer cells (Coussens et al., 2000, Joyce, 2005, Thiery, 2009). While cancer cell-autonomous changes are undoubtedly critical for cancer progression and metastasis, the functional contribution of stromal cells is still emerging.
Pericytes are an integral component of the tissue vasculature. As perivascular stromal cells, pericytes provide structural support to blood vessels and regulate tissue physiology via its influence on vascular stability (Dore-Duffy and Cleary, 2011, Kim et al., 2006). Due to their essential function in vascular development, pericytes are also speculated to play an important role in tumor angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is required for the growth of tumors, and VEGF-mediated proliferation and migration of endothelial cells is critical for the generation of new capillaries, which is further supported by the recruitment of pericytes (Raza et al., 2010). Some studies have explored strategies that target both endothelial cells and pericytes (Bergers et al., 2003, Lu et al., 2007) or pericytes alone (Lu et al., 2007, Ozerdem, 2006a) to inhibit tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth. However, clinical data correlates low pericyte coverage with poor patient prognosis (O'Keeffe et al., 2008, Stefansson et al., 2006, Yonenaga et al., 2005), and disruption of pericytes has also been suggested to enhance metastasis (Xian et al., 2006).
The growth of tumors is often associated with defective tumor vasculature that cannot keep up with the overall oxygen and metabolic needs, ultimately resulting in tumor hypoxia (Harris, 2002, Semenza, 2003). Diminished oxygen levels lead to the activation and stabilization of the transcription factor HIF1α (Pouysségur et al., 2006), and hypoxia and HIF1α expression are correlated with poor prognosis and metastasis in cancer patients (Birner et al., 2000, Bos et al., 2003, Brizel et al., 1997, Vleugel et al., 2005). Hypoxia induces epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of cells specifically via HIF1α activation of the master regulator of EMT Twist (Sun et al., 2009, Yang et al., 2008), which is suggested to play an essential role in promoting metastasis (Yang et al., 2004).
Met, the receptor for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), is also a key promoter of EMT (Birchmeier et al., 2003). Furthermore, the Met promoter contains HIF1α binding sites and is regulated by both hypoxia and HIF1α (Hara et al., 2006, Hayashi et al., 2005, Pennacchietti et al., 2003). HGF/Met expression is also upregulated in many cancers (Di Renzo et al., 1991), correlating with disease progression and metastasis (Di Renzo et al., 1995, Kenworthy et al., 1992) (Natali et al., 1993).

Using genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) and pharmacological targeting of pericytes, we examined whether pericyte deficiency positively or negatively affects metastasis and explored possible underlying mechanisms.

[Rose]

SFRP2 augments WNT16B signaling to promote therapeutic resistance in the damaged tumor microenvironment

https://www.nature.com/articles/onc2015494

SFRP2 augments WNT16B signaling to promote therapeutic resistance in the damaged tumor microenvironment
Y Sun, D Zhu, F Chen, M Qian, H Wei, W Chen & J Xu

Abstract
Most tumors initially respond to cytotoxic treatments, but acquired resistance often follows. The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a major barrier to clinical success by compromising therapeutic efficacy, and pathological relevance of multiple soluble factors released by a therapeutically remodeled TME remains largely unexplored. Here we show that the secreted frizzled-related protein 2 (SFRP2), a Wnt pathway modulator, is produced by human primary fibroblasts after genotoxic treatments. SFRP2 induction is remarkable in tumor stroma, with transcription mainly modulated by the nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) complex, a property shared by several effectors of the DNA damage secretory program. Instead of directly altering canonical Wnt signaling, SFRP2 augments β-catenin activities initiated by WNT16B, another soluble factor from DNA-damaged stroma. WNT16B recognizes cancer cell surface receptors including frizzled (FZD) 3/4/6, a process enhanced by SFRP2, coordinated by the co-receptor LRP6 but subject to abrogation by DKK1. Importantly, we found WNT16B plays a central role in promoting advanced malignancies particularly acquired resistance by counteracting cell death, an effect that can be minimized by a neutralizing antibody co-administered with classical chemotherapy. Furthermore, DNA damage-triggered expression of WNT16B is systemic, imaged by significant induction among diverse solid organs and circulation in peripheral blood, thereby holding promise as not only a TME-derived anticancer target but also a novel biomarker for clinical evaluation of treatment efficacy. Overall, our study substantiates the biological complexity and pathological implication of a therapy-activated TME, and provides the proof of principle of co-targeting tumor and the TME to prevent acquired resistance, with the aim of improving intervention outcome in an era of precision medicine

[Rose]

https://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/

Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse

By Natural Society
Posted On August 7, 2012

A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.


 
The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”

The team then complimented the statement with a word of their own:

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer. In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether. One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric.

This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe. The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit. If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.

[Rose]

H ΚΕΡΔΟΦΟΡΑ ΜΑΦΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΡΚΙΝΟΥ ΜΕ ΛΑΘΟΣ ΔΙΑΓΝΩΣΕΙΣ
https://www.triklopodia.gr/h-%CE%BA%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B1-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%BF%CF%83/?fbclid=IwAR1VQnU9sbEutbXbOa43qwWQH_e1wonhs1L579waoAMD9HYcGnHRnYhi6_Y

Γράφει η Σουλτάνα Χειλαδάκη

Κάθε χρόνο ένα κύκλωμα μαφίας, με ένα τζίρο δισεκατομμυρίων, σε συνεργασία με εντεταλμένα εργαστήρια που βγάζουν σκόπιμα διαγνώσεις για καρκίνο σε ανύποπτους ασθενείς, κάνει θραύση σε πολλές δυτικές χώρες. Η διαφθορά των ιατρικών και εργαστηριακών κυκλωμάτων είναι εμφανής σε όλα τα επίπεδα. Ποιος θα μπορούσε να σκεφτεί ότι θα φτάσουμε στο σημείο, ιατροί να γνωματεύουν λάθος διαγνώσεις για καρκίνο σε υγιείς εξεταζομένους για να κερδίσουν χρήματα.

Και όμως αυτό συμβαίνει πιο συχνά από ότι μπορούμε να φανταστούμε. Όλο αυτό το κύκλωμα μπορεί να αποκαλυφτεί μόνο στην περίπτωση που ένας ιατρός αποδειχτεί επ αυτοφώρω ότι έχει κάνει σκόπιμα λάθος διάγνωση. Είναι πράγματι μια μεγάλη αθλιότητα που δυστυχώς αμαυρώνει το κύρος του ιατρικού κόσμου, δηλαδή ιατροί να φορτώνουν με ανύπαρκτο καρκίνο τους εξεταζόμενους προκειμένου να κερδίζουν χρήματα από τις χημειοθεραπείες τους.

[Rose]

Chemotherapy is ALL About Money - Helpless Victims Are Being Killed for PROFITS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Fzwj4Zpxs&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR25oreIXy5ZpzVaFAdX-5Bswt_Giw3PKOy6arxT_GhJoxI2dQd73a0Q0_k


Dr. Peter Glidden talks about the incredibly LOW success rate for chemotherapy as a cancer treatment... just 3%!!!

[Rose]

http://enercel.com/chemotherapy-quotes/

Chemotherapy Quotes

Everything in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases, which is not orthomolecular, will fail. “
Dr Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize Winner, USA

In 1974, when the war on cancer was very young, Dr Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize winner, USA
made the following prophetic statement:

“Everything in the treatment and prevention of chronic diseases, which is not orthomolecular, will fail.

Mechanisms of our body are unwilling in the medium term to react cooperatively to toximolecular substances.

Orthodox medicine will attempt to compensate for its disregard of this maxim – which is born out of narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the laws of nature- by spending vast sums of money, by commissioning research on a gigantic scale, and by propaganda. The attempt will fail, but it will cause a tremendous explosion in health costs, which will lead to serious social upheaval and economic and political crisis.

“Even industries which merge into vast conglomerates in order to be able to finance toximolecular, non-biological ‘medicines’ will fail.”

No amount of money in the world will ever make it possible to imitate the development of effective substances over hundreds of millions of years of biofunctional adaptation”

“Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure—Hodgkin’s disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.”—Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.

“NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!”–Samuel Epstein.

“A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10).”—John Diamond

Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin’s disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40—which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)

“Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland.”—Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains “undefeated,” with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. “The war against cancer is far from over,” stated Dr. Bailar. “The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing.”

“My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations.”—Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, “Cancer does not cure”. Third he said “There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual”.)

“With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago.”—P Quillin, Ph.D.

“1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time.” Ralph Moss.

“….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be “prolonged” beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life.”—John Diamond, M.D.

“Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for “cure” by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way.”—Diamond.

Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it.”—Alan Levin, M.D.

According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 – 1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of “statistically significant” results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also, Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% – 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca = 75%/63% – 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren’t these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??—RD Hodgell, M.D.

“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 J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.

“I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body’s immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn’t have chemotherapy and radiation because I’m not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients.”—Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.

“Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough.”—Dr Diamond, M.D.

“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

John Robbins:

   “Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy – 3%

   Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influcence on survival or quality of life – none.

   Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its    “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity” – 75%

   Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy – 75%.

   Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the world – Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

   Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers – Richard L. Gelb.

   Mr. Gelb’s other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of managers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World’s largest private cancer treatment and research center.

   Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s board of overseers, board of managers – John S. Reed.

   Reed’s other job – director, Philip Morris (tobacco company).

   Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company – Samuel Broder.

   Broder’s other job (until 1995) – executive director, National Cancer Institute.”from Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins.

“If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA’s definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.”—Ralph Moss

“The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response, irrespective of survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life.”—Abel.1990.

“For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates…It is difficult to find that there has been much progress…(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement…(which) is considerably less than reported.”—General Accounting Office

“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”—Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.

“He said, “I’m giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are killing them, and I can’t stop it because they say the protocol’s what’s important.” And I say, “But the patient’s not doing well.” They say, “The protocol’s what’s important, not the patient.” And he said, “You can’t believe what goes on in the name of medicine and science in this country.” –Gary Null

The Politics of Cancer—Epstein

That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the “War against Cancer” was launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer establishment—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS).

That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%.

That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million.

That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer.

That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become “what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company.”

That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures “well over 50% of people with cancer.”

That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs.

That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is “more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives.” Furthermore, it is the only known “charity” that makes contributions to political parties.

That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal.

That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products _food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action have not been taken.

That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice

[Rose]

Εstablishment medicine, with little or no evidence to support their barbaric use of these highly toxic drugs, continues to make fortunes while their patients spent their last days vomiting debilitated baldheaded and without dignity. - Dr Robert Willner

[Rose]

https://books.google.gr/books?id=iykqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT378&lpg=PT378&dq=Εstablishment+medicine,+with+little+or+no+evidence+to+support+their+barbaric+use+of+these+highly+toxic+drugs,+continues+to+make+fortunes+while+their+patients+spent+their+last+days+vomiting+debilitated+baldheaded+and+without+dignity.&source=bl&ots=rJWyFmIoQv&sig=ACfU3U2sAvZwcYlnvQHrwz2n6TRXb2UzQA&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje4IHMoonlAhWxM-wKHYctA6wQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Εstablishment%20medicine%2C%20with%20little%20or%20no%20evidence%20to%20support%20their%20barbaric%20use%20of%20these%20highly%20toxic%20drugs%2C%20continues%20to%20make%20fortunes%20while%20their%20patients%20spent%20their%20last%20days%20vomiting%20debilitated%20baldheaded%20and%20without%20dignity.&f=false

[Rose]

ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΗ ΕΡΗΜΟΣ
Χημειοθεραπεία–ακτινοβολίες: Αναπόδεικτες, αναποτελεσματικές και επικίνδυνοι μέθοδοι

https://www.freeinquiry.gr/articles/erevnes/epistimoniki-erimos/3071.html

[Rose]

https://www.naturalnews.com/055365_chemotherapy_cancer_treatment_patient_fatalities.html?fbclid=IwAR0lVN6NPZWOd4jYWMwPDKHQqxGyfZ2zHEY7V74_4eF9Qsoub5jV3LDH9s0

Shocking new study shows chemo kills half of cancer patients, not cancer itself
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 by: Amy Goodrich

(NaturalNews) A new landmark study found that up to 50 percent of people who receive chemotherapy are killed by the treatment, not cancer itself. For the first time, researchers from Public Health England and Cancer Research U.K. examined the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy is an invasive and toxic treatment to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, chemo doesn't differentiate between a cancerous or a healthy cell. As a result, it kills all living matter on its way. Furthermore, chemo drugs are known to damage the immune system. This makes cancer patients more vulnerable to infections, which may contribute to the high mortality rates.

Chemo kills within the first 30 days
The study, which was published in The Lancet Oncology medical journal, looked at more than 23,000 women with breast cancer and nearly 10,000 men with lung cancer who underwent chemotherapy in 2014. Of those treated with chemotherapy, 1,383 died within 30 days.

As reported by the Telegraph, on average 8.4 percent of lung cancer patients and 2.4 percent of breast cancer patients died within a month. That number, however, depended hugely on the hospital.

The mortality rate at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals for those undergoing palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, for instance, was 28 percent. But in Milton Keynes the death rate for lung cancer treatment went up to 50.9 percent.

According to Dr. Jem Rashbass, Cancer Lead for Public Health England, chemotherapy is a crucial part of cancer treatment. He, however, admitted that chemotherapy drugs are potent chemical substances with significant side effects.

He further noted that getting the balance right to aggressively treat patients can be hard. Therefore, hospitals with death rates outside the expected range have had the findings shared with them. Also, they have been asked to review their practice and data.

Doctors should be more careful about pushing toxic treatment
Furthermore, the authors of the study have advised physicians to exercise more caution in selecting which patients should receive chemotherapy. They noted that some people, such as older and more infirm patients, might be better off without it.

"I think it's important to make patients aware that there are potentially life threatening downsides to chemotherapy. And doctors should be more careful about who they treat with chemotherapy," said Professor David Dodwell, Institute of Oncology, St James Hospital, Leeds, UK.

All hospitals involved stated that since they received the notification of the high death rates, they have reviewed the information and remain certain chemotherapy was safe in all administered cases.

While chemotherapy has been used as a cancer treatment for decades, scientists are still looking for safer and more effective treatments or a possible cure. In May 2016, a study conducted at the Duke University Medical Center found that an antibody, developed from the human body's immune system, appeared to specifically target cancer cells without doing damage to healthy cells.

Effective alternative treatments do exist, but due to bad governmental policies in favor of the Big Pharma, cancer patients in most areas of the U.S. are withhold from such treatments and are forced into expensive chemotherapy treatments or face time in jail.

Remember the 17-year-old girl who was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma? Last year, after seeking out alternative care, she was denied contact with her own family and placed in foster care while health authorities forced her to undergo cancer treatment against her will.

[Rose]

https://naturalsociety.com/deadly-cancer-drugs-make-cancer-worse-and-kill-patients-more-quickly/

Deadly Cancer Drugs Make Cancer Worse and Kill Patients More Quickly

By Natural Society
Posted On January 19, 2012

Cancer drugs, pushed by many drug companies as the only ‘scientific’ method of combating cancer alongside chemotherapy, have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly. The findings come after research was conducted on the cancer drugs at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Sold at a premium price to cancer sufferers, it turns out these drugs are not only ineffective but highly dangerous.

Something known as anti-antiogenesis is the primary function behind many such widely-used cancer drugs that were analyzed in the study. Researchers examined drugs such as imatanib (a leukemia drug that goes by the brand name Gleev.ec) and sunit.inib (a drug for gastrointestinal tumors — brand name Sutent), finding that these drugs may initially reduce tumor size but afterwards cause tumors to ‘metasize’ aggressively. This means that the tumors come back much stronger and grow much larger than their original size.

Cancer Drugs Lead to ‘Metasized’ Tumors
As a result, patients develop life-threatening tumors that oftentimes kill patients more quickly as a result of taking the drug.

When study researchers induced anti-angiogenesis in mice, there was an initial 30% decrease in the volume of the tumor over 25 days. Afterwards, however, the tumors that had metastasized to the lungs tripled. Researchers published the findings in the January 17 issue of Cancer Cell, with study authors shocked by the findings.

“Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumors can inadvertently do something to increase the tumor numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day,” said study author Dr. Raghu Kalluri.

“Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumors can inadvertently do something to increase the tumor numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day,” said study author Dr. Raghu Kalluri.

Natural Alternatives More Effective, Come Without Side Effects
It is clear that these cancer drugs are virtually ineffective at treating cancer, even killing patients who may have otherwise survived. Of course a number of natural anti-cancer substances do exist that have been found to be largely effective in reducing tumor size and most importantly combating the onset of cancer. Perhaps the most amazing anti-cancer substance for your health is high quality turmeric. Turmeric has been found to reduce tumors by an astounding 81% in recent research. And contrary to cancer drugs, turmeric does not come loaded with deadly side effects.

Quite the opposite, turmeric instead comes with beneficial properties that can prevent your risk of disease and positively affect over 560 conditions.

Vitamin D is another essential anti-cancer nutrient. Amazingly, vitamin D is much more effective than pharmaceutical drugs at fighting cancer, and is virtually a free nutrient. Instead of paying a premium price for deadly cancer drugs, your vitamin D levels can be significantly improved by soaking up some sunlight. It is important to receive a blood test to ensure you are within the optimal vitamin D level range. The correct test you should receive is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The optimal range is 50-70 ng/ml, though if you are fighting cancer or heart disease it is 70-100 ng/ml.

[Rose]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27599138

30-day mortality after systemic anticancer treatment for breast and lung cancer in England: a population-based, observational study.
Wallington M1, Saxon EB2, Bomb M1, Smittenaar R2, Wickenden M2, McPhail S1, Rashbass J1, Chao D3, Dewar J4, Talbot D5, Peake M6, Perren T7, Wilson C8, Dodwell D9.
Author information
1
Public Health England, London, UK.
2
Cancer Research UK, London, UK.
3
Department of Oncology, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
4
Department of Oncology, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
5
University of Oxford, Department of Oncology, Oxford, UK.
6
Public Health England, London, UK; University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.
7
Leeds Institute of Cancer Research and Pathology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
8
Oncology Centre, Addenbrooke's NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.
9
Institute of Oncology, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: david.dodwell@nhs.net.
Erratum in
Correction to Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1203, 06, 08, 09, 11. [Lancet Oncol. 2016]
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
30-day mortality might be a useful indicator of avoidable harm to patients from systemic anticancer treatments, but data for this indicator are limited. The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset collated by Public Health England allows the assessment of factors affecting 30-day mortality in a national patient population. The aim of this first study based on the SACT dataset was to establish national 30-day mortality benchmarks for breast and lung cancer patients receiving SACT in England, and to start to identify where patient care could be improved.

METHODS:
In this population-based study, we included all women with breast cancer and all men and women with lung cancer residing in England, who were 24 years or older and who started a cycle of SACT in 2014 irrespective of the number of previous treatment cycles or programmes, and irrespective of their position within the disease trajectory. We calculated 30-day mortality after the most recent cycle of SACT for those patients. We did logistic regression analyses, adjusting for relevant factors, to examine whether patient, tumour, or treatment-related factors were associated with the risk of 30-day mortality. For each cancer type and intent, we calculated 30-day mortality rates and patient volume at the hospital trust level, and contrasted these in a funnel plot.

FINDINGS:
Between Jan 1, and Dec, 31, 2014, we included 23 228 patients with breast cancer and 9634 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in our regression and trust-level analyses. 30-day mortality increased with age for both patients with breast cancer and patients with NSCLC treated with curative intent, and decreased with age for patients receiving palliative SACT (breast curative: odds ratio [OR] 1·085, 99% CI 1·040-1·132; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 1·045, 1·013-1·079; p=0·00033; breast palliative: 0·987, 0·977-0·996; p=0·00034; NSCLC palliative: 0·987, 0·976-0·998; p=0·0015). 30-day mortality was also significantly higher for patients receiving their first reported curative or palliative SACT versus those who received SACT previously (breast palliative: OR 2·326 99% CI 1·634-3·312; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 3·371, 1·554-7·316; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 2·667, 2·109-3·373; p<0·0001), and for patients with worse general wellbeing (performance status 2-4) versus those who were generally well (breast curative: 6·057, 1·333-27·513; p=0·0021; breast palliative: 6·241, 4·180-9·319; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 3·384, 2·276-5·032; p<0·0001). We identified trusts with mortality rates in excess of the 95% control limits; this included seven for curative breast cancer, four for palliative breast cancer, five for curative NSCLC, and seven for palliative NSCLC.

INTERPRETATION:
Our findings show that several factors affect the risk of early mortality of breast and lung cancer patients in England and that some groups are at a substantially increased risk of 30-day mortality. The identification of hospitals with significantly higher 30-day mortality rates should promote review of clinical decision making in these hospitals. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of collecting routine data beyond clinical trials to better understand the factors placing patients at higher risk of 30-day mortality, and ultimately improve clinical decision making. Our insights into the factors affecting risk of 30-day mortality will help treating clinicians and their patients predict the balance of harms and benefits associated with SACT.

FUNDING:
Public Health England.

Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY NC-ND license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

[Rose]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

Format: AbstractSend to
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16( 8 ):549-60.
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton M.
Author information
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. gmorgan1@bigpond.net.au
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.

Comment in
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to the management of cancer. [Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005]
PMID: 15630849 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007