Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments – Chapter 7 – Orthodox Medicine Quiz

Written by Webster Kehr, Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc. | Last updated on | Filed under: Alternative Treatments, Articles

Orthodox Medicine Quiz

Now let’s test your knowledge of orthodox medicine. First, we need to define a term:

Definition: total life The length of time between the diagnosis of cancer and the death of the cancer patient, whether it is death by cancer, death by cancer treatment or death by any other cause. This is also called “survival time.”

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into “remission.” Putting people into remission proves that the “total life” (see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox medicine considers that they are “cured” of cancer. Is this concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of “total life?”

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug significantly extends the “total life” of a cancer patient. True or false?

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy extends the “total life” of cancer patients compared to those who refuse all treatment. True or false?

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer, “cure rates” have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to alternative treatments. Do you agree?

Now the answers.

Question #1

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into “remission.” Putting people into remission proves that the “total life” (see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Answer: People equate the concept of “remission” with the concept of “cure.” Technically, “remission” means nothing more than one or more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a tumor may put a cancer patient into “remission”). However, even if a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to be in “remission,” there still may be many areas of concentrated cancer cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially damaging areas of cancer in their body and they can still be considered to be in “remission.”

There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of symptoms generally relates to a longer “total life.” In other words, there has never been scientific proof that the concept of removing “symptoms” and the concept of increasing “total life” are related. Indeed, the “total life” of cancer patients has barely changed in over 80 years in spite of many improvements in treating symptoms.

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some types of cancer, more than 90% of the people who go into remission will come out of remission (which is called “regression”) and will later die of cancer. “Total Life” has to do with the eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Consider this quote:

  • “Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse within two years … Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients then go into remission, a period of “watchful waiting.” “The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women will relapse and die,” says Berek. When the cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy.”
    taken from: http://www.azcentral.com/health/women/articles/0618ovarian.html

Of course the “returning” cancer is more deadly than the original cancer because the person’s immune system was destroyed while treating the symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never have left the patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immune system, the patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.

An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of orthodox medicine. The term is “response.” Again, people equate the term “response” to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even more deceptive than the term “remission.” What does “response” mean? It only means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That’s all.

Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being cured. This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the issue of “total life.” Rather than extending the total life of patients, they extend their vocabulary to be more and more deceptive.

Question #2

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox medicine considers that they are “cured” of cancer. Is this concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of “total life?”

Answer: It is assumed that the concept of “cure” (meaning patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent to the concept of “total life.” Consider two car manufacturing companies, Company B and Company G. Let us define the “total life” of the cars these companies manufacture to be the number of miles the cars drive before the engine dies permanently and has to be replaced. Suppose the “total life” of Company B cars is 100,000 miles and suppose the “total life” of the Company G cars is 300,000 miles.

Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are as good as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with statistics.

For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look very good and you could not tell them apart. But if the study were based on what percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were still running after 250,000 miles, the truth about the inferiority of Company B car engines would be obvious.

If the “benchmark” is carefully chosen to be well below the average, any company will look good.

That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A “cure rate” based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine test after 30,000 miles – it is meaningless. The benchmark is way too low. “Cure rates” should be based on “total life” and nothing else. For example, some cancers are very slow growing. The “cure rate” for these cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-year “cure rate” would show just how poor treatments are for some of these types of cancers.

But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper than that – much deeper.

If you look up the word “cure” in the dictionary, or think about the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a definition of “cure for cancer” as meaning the cancer patient has been returned to his or her condition before they got cancer. In other words, they have less than, or fewer, cancer cells than the average person.

Why doesn’t orthodox medicine use that definition of “cure?” If they did use that definition, and every few years they found a true cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly go up.

But that is exactly why they don’t use that definition of cure. They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a PhD in physics used to say: “a patient cured is a customer lost.”

How can orthodox medicine maximize their “profit per cancer patient?” In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer, but they can control how much money they make per cancer patient. They can do that by making cancer into a chronic disease.

In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the orthodox medical community can make more and more money per patient.

It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of “cure” that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.

When the orthodox medicine people came up with their “5-year cure rate” they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert cancer into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to be on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was clearly their goal, because as they convert people into chronic patients their “cure rate” will go up and up ( i.e. more and more of them will hit the 5 year mark, but they will be on drugs for life which may not be long after the 5 year mark).

Their definition of “cure” has NOTHING to do with how many cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they will live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is doing, how many microbes they have in their body, etc. etc.

Their definition of “cure” is only a number which reflects their ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The more they are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher their “cure rate,” using their tricky definitions.

Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make their treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how ineffective their treatments are. The American Cancer Society is at the center of the deceptive definitions.

The reader should understand the difference between a “treatment” and a “true cure.” A “true cure,” meaning the patient is made whole and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of orthodox medicine. But a “treatment” extends and expands on their profits. Orthodox medicine wants to “treat” cancer, not “cure” cancer.

In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term “cure” for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because it distracts the attention of people away from what they want – all profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.

Question #3

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug significantly extends the “total life” of a cancer patient. True or false?

Answer: This comment needs some explanation because the goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to maximize their profits. Think about it, can you maximize your profits better if your patients live 5 years or 3 years? Obviously, 5 years. So there is some motivation to extend the life of cancer patients.

However, think about this also. If you cure the patient after one year, how much profits do you make after they are cured? Not much.

Thus, the goal of orthodox medicine is to make cancer into a chronic disease, like diabetes, where the patient has many years of treatment.

Also, understand that chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer cells, they target fast-growing cells. There is a significant difference between targeting fast-growing cells versus targeting cancer cells.

First, some cancer cells are slow growing, thus chemotherapy does not target them and may not kill them. Second, some non-cancerous cells are fast growing, thus chemotherapy may target them and kill them.

Thus, to target fast growing cells instead of cancer cells is a huge difference.

But more importantly, because chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer cells chemotherapy drugs cannot stop the spread of cancer. If enough chemotherapy were given to a cancer patient that the drugs stopped the spread of the cancer, the patient would die from the toxicity of the chemotherapy.

Thus, the FDA has NEVER in their history approved a drug that targeted cancer cells and/or stopped the spread of cancer. Ponder that carefully.

However, scores of natural substances have been proven to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus STOP the spread of cancer and cure the patient. Scores of natural molecules have been proven to do that!!

The FDA has NEVER approved one of the natural substances known to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus stop the spread of cancer and cure the patient.

Thus, everything the FDA has approved:
1) Is very profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) Does NOT target cancer cells,
3) Does NOT stop the spread of cancer, and
4) Does NOT cure the patient.

Technically speaking, the drugs may slow down the cancer, and thus put the patient in remission, but in the vast majority of cases the patient comes out of remmision and dies of cancer or the cancer treatment. Thus the drugs approved by the FDA are more and more profitable to the pharmaceutical industry (because the patient is on the treatment longer), but they do not stop the spread of cancer or cure any patients.

Also, the FDA has NEVER approved any of the natural molecules, which:
1) Are not highly profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) DO target cancer cells or do no harm to normal cells,
3) DO stop the spread of cancer, and
4) DO cure the patient of cancer, especially if the patient did not go with orthodox treatments first.

Do you see a pattern here? The deciding factor on what is approved by the FDA is not based on how long a patient lives, but on how profitable the drug is to the pharmaceutical industry. So talking about the “total life” of the patient misses the whole point of what is going on in orthdox medicine.

This is the key, if the FDA was interested in maximizing the “total life” of cancer patients they would only approve natural substances for the treatment of cancer. That is the key. The FDA is only interested in increasing the “total life” of the cancer patient if it means more profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

To hide what they are really doing, the FDA approves chemotherapy drugs based on the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. The focus on how long a patient lives is not a focus on targeting cancer cells, or doing no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus stopping the spread of cancer and thus curing the patient. It is only a focus on profits.

But the approval of chemotherapy drugs is generally based on how well a new drug does treating symptoms (e.g. tumor size or putting a patient in remission), compared only to how other chemotherapy drugs do treating this same symptom!!

Furthermore, when a chemotherapy drug is approved for “extending life,” the approval is also based on comparing one chemotherapy drug (or combination of drugs) to another chemotherapy drug (or combination of drugs).

Once they got their first chemotherapy drug approved (to treat symptoms), then all future drugs can be approved by comparing them to earlier drugs for either “extending life” or treating symptoms.

Never, never, never, has a chemotherapy drug been approved by a study comparing the use of the drug on one group of patients, and comparing this group to a group of patients who refused treatments (in an FDA filing), nor has a study ever been done comparing chemotherapy to one of the top alternative cancer treatments (in an FDA filing).

  • “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.”Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare a chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person were secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical. However, there are plenty of people who voluntarily refuse to subject themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used in a study to compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who refuse treatment!!

To understand what is going on, suppose a new drug allows 75% of the cancer patients, with a specific type of cancer, to live for 2 years after diagnosis. What exactly does this mean if 85% of those same cancer patients would have survived two years without any type of orthodox treatment or 97% of those same cancer patients would have survived 10 years using the best of the alternative cancer treatments?

Again, the focus of the FDA is on profits, not on “total life,” though the “total life” may increase in order for the pharmaceutical industry to make higher profits.

The FDA executives are not innocent bystanders in the war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The FDA is 100% behind the pharmaceutical industry and 0% behind alternative medicine. They are just as guilty as the pharamceutical executives, just as guilty as the AMA executives, and just as guilty as anyone else lying to the American people by telling them prescription chemotharapy is in the best interests of cancer patients or that alternative cancer treatments are worthless.

Nor can Congress plead stupidity and hide behind the skirts of the FDA. The members of Congress also have their hands in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.

Question #4

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy extends the “total life” of cancer patients compared to those who refuse all treatment. True or false?

Answer: The next quote answers this question:

Professor Hardin B. Jones, PhD stated:

  • “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 …”
    Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6)
    see also: http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm

Now consider this quote:

  • “In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all. No treatment ‘proved a significantly better policy for patients’ survival and for quality of remaining life.'”
    Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer – The Cures – the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! – page 9

And this quote:

  • “A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
  • “The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was ‘appalling’ because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can ‘extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers’. Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as ‘a scientific wasteland’ and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the ‘emperor’s new clothes’–neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! (Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.”
    Tim O’Shea, The Doctor Within

Three major studies all came to the same conclusion: “orthodox cancer treatments” do not extend the “total life” of cancer patients. In fact, in many cases they shorten the “total life” of cancer patients.

Yet virtually every cancer patient on earth has been told by their doctors something like this: “if you take this chemotherapy you will live 6 months longer than if you do not take it.” This statement is ubiquitous but totally unscientific!!

Here is a prophetic quote about the future of chemotherapy and radiation:

  • “Twenty years from now we will look back at chemotherapy and radiation as [being as] barbaric as using leeches,”Steve Millett, manager of technology forecasts for Battelle

Unfortunately, this quote is nonsense. I personally have seen quotes from “cancer researchers” who claim it will be at least 50 years before there will be a dent in cancer. That is more accurate becuase that is what everyone wants.

Question #5

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer, “cure rates” have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to alternative treatments. Do you agree?

Answer: Yes, some “cure rates” have gone up. This is the most damaging deception of all.

Suppose Company B (as discussed above) makes some small improvements in their engines and the “total life” of their engines increases from 100,000 miles to 102,000 miles. Because of this, suppose the percentage of their engines that last 30,000 increases from 92% to 93%.

Now imagine the CEO of Company B makes the following announcement:

“The percentage of our car engines that last 30,000 has increased from 92% to 93%. This proves that Company B cars last longer than Company G cars.”

Is the CEO right? Of course not, Company G engines still last 300,000 and Company B engines only last 102,000. It is an absurd claim. What the Company B executive has done is compare the “old” Company B cars to the “new” Company B cars. The CEO has not compared the “total life” of the Company B cars to the “total life” of the Company G cars.

That is exactly what the FDA does. When orthodox medicine says that “cure rates” have gone up, they are comparing their “old” 5-year chemotherapy stats to their “new” 5-year chemotherapy stats. They are not comparing the “total life” of orthodox treatments to the “total life” of alternative treatments or even the “total life” of those who refuse treatments.

Orthodox medicine is continually “improving” their treatments, all with a loud clarion blast of publicity. Their cure rates are always “going up” and a cure is always “just around the corner.” But look at it this way. Company B can improve their engines to last 102,000, and 5 years later they can improve them to 104,000, and 5 years later to 106,000, and so on. In the mean time people who bought cars from Company G have cars that last 300,000, then 5 years later 305,000, then 5 years later 310,000, and so on. So when will Company B catch up to Company G? Never!!

But this sophisticated deception goes much deeper. “Cure rates” will go up if the cancer is diagnosed earlier! In other words, if the American Cancer Society convinces women to get mammograms (which are carcinogenic, by the way) more often, their breast cancer will be diagnosed earlier, on average, and the “cure rates” for breast cancer will go up! The cure rate did not go up because of some improvement in chemotherapy or radiation, but because women have carcinogenic mammograms more frequently!

There are many ways to manipulate the “cure rates” of orthodox medicine.

In truth, the gap in “total life” between alternative cancer treatments and orthodox cancer treatments is greater than the gap between Company G cars and Company B cars. The Cameron/Pauling study proved that. While the Cameron/Pauling Vitamin C therapy is not one of the best current alternative cancer treatments, there are newer Vitamin C therapies that are among the best treatments.

Orthodox medicine, by using sophisticated definitions and deceptive statistics, has convinced the public to believe that orthodox cancer treatments extend the “total life” of patients. But there is no scientific evidence for that belief!!

I want to emphasize that these deceptions were not developed by ignorant people who didn’t know what they were doing. They are sophisticated, carefully designed statistical deceptions combined with carefully chosen deceptive terminology! A normal person would automatically think only about “total life,” but the “total life” numbers are carefully hidden. More will be said about those doing the deception later.

Chapter 8: Judging Orthodox Medicine

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved. This eBook may be downloaded, stored on the internet, printed, or emailed to others, as long as it is not modified in any way and this copyright notice remains intact.