by Jon Barron
http://www.jonbarron.org
Mark Twain quoted
Benjamin Disraeli, the prime minister of England, as saying: 'There
are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, damn lies, and
statistics.' That statement is even more true (and dangerous) when
applied to medical studies. One example is the recent Oxford
University study published in The Lancet which touts the
effectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supports
the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for
five 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 of tamoxifen that
consistently read something like 'The National Cancer Institute's
Breast Cancer Prevention Trial reported that there was a 49 percent
decrease in the incidence of breast cancer in women who took
tamoxifen for five years.'
That's stunning. If
your doctor told you that using tamoxifen cut your chances of getting
breast cancer by 49%, would there be any question in your mind on
whether or not to use it? Not in mine - at least until I talked to
Benjamin Disraeli. If you look past the statistics, the truth is that
according to the study, your odds of getting breast cancer without
using tamoxifen was only 1.3%, and with tamoxifen it dropped to .68%.
That represents a 49% difference between the two numbers (as cited),
but just a little over one-half of one-percent difference (.62%) in
real terms.
And for that meager
sixth-tenths of one-percent difference, we now need to consider that
tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, and
gastrointestinal tract. A study at Johns Hopkins found that tamoxifen
promotes liver cancer, and in 1996, a division of the World Health
Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen for the uterus. In another
abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen developed
endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs, 130
developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels)
and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss. Other
permanent damage includes osteoporosis, retinal damage, corneal
changes, optic nerve damage, and cataracts. In short, the half
percent of those who received a reduction in breast cancer by using
tamoxifen traded it for an increase in other cancers and life
threatening diseases. A half percent in real world terms is vastly
different from the 49% 'statistic-ed' improvement cited in the
studies - and hardly worth the increased risk.
Once you look behind
the numbers, is it any wonder the 'war on cancer' continues to fail
so miserably? The problem is that the doctors themselves believe the
statistically manipulated numbers they feed to the public. And yet,
the general trend is undeniable. Things are not getting better. The
incidence rate of cancer has exploded from around one in five hundred
in 1900 to approximately one in two today. And for every statistical
blip downward in selected cancers such as breast and prostate cancer
(after years of soaring incidence and mortality, mind you), there is
a significant jump in "new," even more deadly cancers such
as liver, pancreatic, and lymph cancers.
Chemotherapy: The Good,
the Bad, and the Ugly
For those of you who
are new to the debate, let me explain some of the pros and cons of
chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a high probability that you or
someone you know will have to face the decision on how to treat
cancer.
Before we get into how
chemotherapy works, it's probably worth a little digression to talk
about its history. The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy was
not originally intended for that purpose. Mustard gas was used as a
chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further
during World War II. During a military operation in World War II, a
group of people were accidentally exposed to mustard gas and were
later found to have very low white blood cell counts. It was reasoned
that an agent that damaged the rapidly growing white blood cells
might have a similar effect on cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s,
several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of certain white
blood cells) were given the drug by vein, rather than by breathing
the irritating gas. Their improvement, although temporary, was
remarkable. That experience started researchers studying other
substances that might have similar effects against cancer.
Chemotherapy is used to
kill cancer cells anywhere in the body, including cells that have
broken off from a main tumor and traveled through the blood or lymph
systems to other parts of the body. Many doctors have successfully
slowed cancer cells by using chemotherapy after a tumor has been
surgically removed. How does it work? Chemotherapy drugs are
cytotoxic, meaning they poison the cells in our body that multiply
the most rapidly, which is how the majority of cancer cells perform.
So, if your cancer cells are rapidly multiplying, you may find
chemotherapy effective.
The major disadvantage
to chemotherapy is that the drugs don't just kill the cancer cells
that are dividing, but any dividing cell, including the multitude of
healthy cells all over the body caught in the act of dividing. For
those whose 'healthy' cells are multiplying faster than the cancer
cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of success. This
explains why chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers -
primarily, Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular
cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.
For the majority of
people who have healthy cell division, you may end up killing the
body before the cancer. For instance, there is a high probability
that certain fast multiplying immune system cells including our T and
B lymphocytes will also die, contributing to our body's inability to
fight opportunistic diseases that arise as a result of the treatment.
Other cells that grow fast are cells of the bone marrow that produce
blood cells, cells in the stomach and intestines, and cells of the
hair follicles, which is why a patient's hair usually falls out.
In either event, the
drug's objective is to poison the system-creating horrendous pain and
illness often worse than the disease itself. The toxins attack
healthy, dividing blood cells and cause blood poisoning. The
gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing nausea,
diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Some
drugs can slough the entire lining of the intestines. Reproductive
organs are affected causing sterility. The brain loses memory. The
hair falls out. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. The kidneys are
damaged. Sores appear in the mouth and throat. The body bleeds and
bruises easily and can't fight infections. Every conceivable function
is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect
to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment. It makes you
wonder how most people die when they report the rising cancer death
statistics.
It's especially telling
when a number of surveys over the years show that most
chemotherapists would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend
it for their families. Today's chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic
substances ever put deliberately into the human body. In fact,
personnel who administer these drugs take great precautions to avoid
exposure. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference
for medical personnel, offers strict warnings for handling cytotoxic
agents and sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who
work around the chemicals. In addition, increased concerns regarding
mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be
investigated.
The sad part is that we
accept these types of results, feeling that we have no choice in the
matter. We submissively believe the medical community'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 scientific evidence for chemotherapy being
able to extend the lives of patients suffering from 80% of all
cancers.
Bottom line, orthodox
chemotherapy is toxic, immunosuppressant, and carcinogenic. As death
rates keep going up, why then do the majority of doctors and
oncologists still push chemotherapy?
First, effective cancer
treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an 'effective'
drug as one that achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for
28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no
correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the
cancer or extension of life. So, when a doctor says 'effective' to a
cancer patient, it does not mean it cures cancer-only temporary
shrinks a tumor. (Sound like Disraeli again?)
Secondly, most doctors
just don't know what else to do. They face patients that they feel
have hopeless conditions and justify the continual loss of life
brought about by these drugs because it's the only alternative they
know (along with surgery and radiation). They refer to this stage not
as therapy, but as experimentation, which is better 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 all they know. They
all want to help cancer patients, but they don't have other options
in their arsenal - certainly not options that come from outside the
medical fraternity.
Third, and commonly
seen in all major industries, as long as drug companies and the
cancer industry see profits, there will be little motivation to
change. It is not surprising that the cancer industry turns over in
excess of $200 billion annually. Or, that the few who sought
alternative cancer methods encountered armed raids, loss of
licensure, professional smearing, and ostracism. One such person is
Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, who stated at a recent National Institute of Health
meeting, about chemotherapy: '[It's] a marvellous opportunity for
rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical
principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at
physicians and prescribers."
And last but not least,
in a small percentage of cases, chemotherapy absolutely does help -
which is not to say that other approaches wouldn't work as well, or
better. But it is, in fact, this minimal success rate that fuels the
continued use of the therapy. Based on these occasional successes,
doctors will often pressure patients to opt for the therapy even when
it has little chance of success in their particular cases.
Also, it is worth
noting that the benefits of chemo vary widely from cancer to cancer -
sometimes improving 'short-term' survivability by as much as 50%; but
also, in many cases, by 1% or less. For example, the statistical
chances of chemotherapy being helpful with lung cancer are less than
1 in 100, and yet doctors often pressure their patients into
utilizing, what is in this case, a non-effective and debilitating
treatment. And on top of everything else, the success rate for
chemotherapy is highly age dependent. It is much more likely to 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 that it's effective
50% of the time, but rather that it's a 50/50 call as to whether
doing chemo or nothing at all is the better option in terms of
survivability. And by age 55, you're statistically better off doing
nothing rather than subjecting yourself to chemo.
Keep in mind that
whatever else you can say about chemotherapy, no one can ever claim
it addresses the cause of cancer. It merely attacks the symptom. No
one, even the most jaded doctor in the world, claims that people get
cancer because they're suffering from a chemotherapy deficiency.
Obviously, there is
only so much we can do with the current state of affairs and we
should not expect the industry to change any time soon. However, we
do not have to sit on the sidelines when it comes to our personal
health and wellness due to ignorance, money, and bureaucrats.
Solution -- Take an
Active Role
I always encourage
people to take an active role in their health, and this is even more
important when you are dealing with a catastrophic illness such as
cancer. Ask as many questions as you can and research your specific
type of cancer to understand both the conventional and
non-conventional success rates for specific remedies. Look for
strategies that strengthen the body, not weaken it, allowing the body
to heal itself. I also encourage you to read my book, Lessons from
the Miracle Doctors, which gives many suggestions for those fighting
cancer as well as preventative measures everyone should take to avoid
cancer in the first place. (You can download a free copy at
www.jonbarron.org. And while you're there, be sure to check out the
newsletter archives.) And, finally, be careful what you read or what
conclusion you draw from any study or statistic. Know the motive
behind the study. Don't be 'statistic-ed.' In the end, we are the
ones responsible for our health and our bodies. It is only prudent to
look at the details.
And one final note.
There is more hope than you can possibly imagine in terms of dealing
with cancer. There are at least 18 different peoples on Earth today
who do not suffer from cancer - many of these cannot record even one
victim of the disease in their entire culture. Do genetics play a
role? Quite probably. But when entire cultures are cancer free, it
makes the environmental and lifestyle connections undeniable -
especially when those cancer rates change once they move from their
original environment. That means that for most of us, we can
dramatically improve our odds when it comes to getting cancer in the
first place, or curing it if we do get it simply by modifying our
environmental and lifestyle circumstances."
