Painful Memories; righteous Indignation
On November 17, 2017, I happened to find the results of a serious medical study concerning cancer. After reading it, I was, quite frankly, furious.
Why? I will begin by recounting a scene from the most emotionally painful time of my life.
In 2013, my mother had an operation to remove a cancerous tumor from her leg. The diagnosis was "soft tissue sarcoma". It was hoped that with the removal of the tumor, the danger of the cancer spreading could be stopped. A couple of weeks after the surgery, I drove her back to the surgeon's clinic, so that we could find out the post-surgical test results. Our hope was that the cancer had been checked; our fear, that it had spread.
I asked to talk to the surgeon alone, for I wished to learn the truth − the complete truth − unadorned and unadulterated.
I will never forget that conversation, though I would have good emotional reasons for wanting to do so.
"Doctor, I would like to hear the truth. Just how bad is it?"
The physician spoke with an expression of heart-felt sympathy, and to his credit, he was indeed straightforward. He explained that the worst had occurred. The cancer had spread to her lungs, and that this meant that there was practically no hope whatsoever of conquering it.
You can no doubt imagine how devastating it was for me to hear that my mother was condemned to death. It was, up to that time, the most heartrendingly sorrowful moment of my life, only to be surpassed by other moments in the following six weeks, culminating in her passing.
Trying to remain focused, I asked how long she had to live. He responded: "A year at the most, but it could be a lot less."
I then asked whether some form of treatment, chemotherapy for instance, might be effective.
The doctor was direct and honest: "Considering the severity of this type of cancer, as well as your mother's advanced age and weakened state, not only wouldn't chemotherapy do any good; one single session would, in my opinion, probably kill her."
You can't be much more honest than that. Yet I still feel gratitude towards this physician for sincerely giving me a straight and honest answer to my question.
Several weeks later, our family physician recommended that she see a local oncologist, a specialist for chemotherapy. Mom had already told us that under no circumstances did she want chemotherapy, and since the surgeon had told me several weeks before that one chemo session would almost certainly kill her, I could only agree. Nonetheless, perhaps not wanting to "disobey" her doctor, she did arrange for an appointment with the oncologist.
My brother Steve and I accompanied her to the appointment. The oncologist, a women who looked to be in her early forties, was quite friendly, and even cheery. For me, it would not be easy to display such cheer if I had to deal every day with people who are at death's door, but I suppose that cultivating such a façade is a lot better than greeting your patients with the mien of an undertaker.
While my mother was waiting in another room, the doctor had a conversation with Steve and me. In that talk, she highly recommended treating my mother with – chemotherapy.
It was most difficult for me not to show anger. Had not the surgeon who had removed the tumor said in no uncertain terms that one session of chemo would kill her? And now, here was an oncologist trying to talk us into just such a "therapy"!
Steve asked a most logical question: "Doctor, you said you have a lot of experience in this field, and that you studied under one of the most renowned chemo experts in the country. So maybe you could tell us what the statistics show. In other words, for a person our mother's age and condition − 85, who has soft tissue sarcoma that has spread to the lungs, and who is now at stage 4 − for such a person, what are the chances that chemo would help her?
"Oh well", the physician replied, "I don't know the numbers off hand, but you know, many people choose chemo for this, and other types of cancer."
I was finding it difficult to not insult her − or even to keep from slapping her in the face. Here was someone who used chemotherapy on patients every day; someone who was injecting extremely strong drugs into the bodies of people whose illness had already weakened them fatally, and she "didn't know the numbers"? If you were a physician, and were providing a "treatment" meant to cure, wouldn't you make sure to "do your homework" and find out what those statistics were? Wouldn't you think she'd have said that although she didn't know the numbers, she would call her mentor in New York − the guy she praised as being one of the best in the country − in order to learn what those statistics were?
I smelled a rat, and it wasn't hard to recognize her motive, especially when she said:
"Oh, you don't have to worry. I saw that your mom has a great insurance plan, so you won't have to pay anything for the chemotherapy."
My translation: "Hey guys, don't worry about your inheritance. The insurance company will pay for all of this, no matter how many thousands of bucks it costs!"
This alone was an insult. If I had thought that this, or any other treatment would have saved, or even significantly prolonged, my mother's life, I would have paid any sum necessary. After all, had not our mother dedicated her life to raising us, to doing everything she could to help us, nurture us, and take care of us when we were ill? The very suggestion that we might hesitate about accepting chemo because we might have to sacrifice the inheritance, or even our own money, struck me as an insult.
But it got worse. During the weeks I had been caring for my mother, I had read as much as I possibly could about alternative cancer treatments. Again and again, I learned that thousands of doctors (most of them referred to as alternative physicians) highly recommended very specific diet plans as a means of fighting, or even curing, cancer. Thus, it seemed logical to me to ask about the value of nutrition.
"Tell me, doctor", I began, "What sort of dietary changes might possibly help our mother?"
"Oh, I'm not a nutritionist", she informed us with a smile, "But you know, I think you should let your mom eat anything she wants. If she wants cheesecake, give her cheesecake!"
My anger almost surged to the surface; it took great self-control to not hurl the vilest insults at her. For what was she really saying? That she clearly saw that hope was futile; that at this stage, there was nothing we could do to help my mother; that she, a trained physician, knew nothing of nutrition. But, here she was, trying to convince us to sign off on chemotherapy, which according to the surgeon, would kill her at a single session!
I'm sure you've put the pieces together for yourself. For me, it was plain. This "doctor" wanted to "treat" our mother as soon as possible, using a method that she no doubt knew would not only not help, but that would probably kill her right then and there.
And why in God's name would she want to do this? Could it be that she was trying to convince us because she would stand to pick up about $10,000 for that first session of chemo?
What would you say about someone who, for the sake of money, would try to convince you to subject your mother to a process that was in all likelihood going to rob her of a few more weeks, or maybe even months, of life? What would you say about a physician who, although dispensing poison (chemo drugs) to dying people every day of the week, does not know the statistics concerning whether how much that treatment might help?
I would say that such a person is a charlatan, one that should not only be barred from medical practice, but who should probably be sitting in a jail cell. And yet this woman is, as far as I know, still practicing oncology, and is still "treating" patients in Hanover, Pa.
But you may ask: why am I now, over four years after my mother passed, so furious, just because I recently read the results of a scientific study?
The study in question − "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" − was published in 2004. It is a study which followed rigorous scientific procedure. True, it does not deal with all types of cancer; that was not its aim. However, it does show the statistics relevant to 22 types of common cancer, including the one that afflicted my mother: soft tissue sarcoma. And keep in mind: the chemo drugs used today are largely those that were approved before 2004, and that are still in use today.
At this point, some of you might be thinking: “But no doubt chemo drugs have improved greatly since 2004”. Unfortunately, this is not so. For if cancer drugs have greatly improved since 2004, why have the survival rates increased only very minimally since then? And could those slightly increased survival rates have more to do with people becoming more aware of the importance of life-style changes (increased use of vitamins and mineral supplements; exercising; giving up smoking, etc.) than with supposed advances in chemo treatment? Above all: why has a comprehensive scientific study concerning the efficacy of chemo drugs in fighting cancer not been done since 2004? Also: why is this 2004 study, despite its relevance even today, so difficult to find? Why don’t doctors seem to know these statistics? And if they do know them, why don’t they share them with their patients who have been diagnosed with cancer? Could it be because if patients were aware of the dismal record of chemotherapy in contributing even to five-year survival rates (let alone to curing the disease), they would almost certainly opt to reject chemotherapy, which would in turn lead to great financial losses to the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry? Question upon question, the answers to which, I assure you, will not be freely given to you by the great majority of medical professionals. And this is, in my view, a true scandal, for being fully informed is the right of everyone who has fallen ill with a life-threatening disease.
In 2013, while caring for my mother, and spending all of my free time searching for anything that might help her, I also tried to find precisely such statistics, yet to no avail. You see, although the study I mentioned had appeared nine years earlier, and contained information that was (and is) still highly relevant, and that everyone who has cancer and is considering chemo should know, it is still not very easy to locate, unless you know its title, or just happen to "stumble across it" − as happened to me the other day.
Why is this? How could it be that a truly scientific study, undertaken by experts in the field, and that contains information of such crucial import for cancer sufferers − how could it be that its findings are not given to everyone who suffers from this dread disease?
Now: if you are an oncologist, you almost certainly do know of this study; if you don't, then you are guilty of gross negligence. For how could you inject poisonous chemo drugs into a dying person, in the "hope" that enough "bad cells" are killed off before the patient succumbs to the pernicious side effects of the drugs themselves − how could you ever take such a drastic step without even bothering to investigate the probability that those drugs, statistically speaking, will do more harm than good?
When I read this study, I understood why that oncologist four years earlier had responded to my brother's question with a merry "Oh well, I don't know the numbers off hand". I also know why she didn't offer to contact her mentor to request those numbers. As a matter of fact, she was obviously not about to make those numbers available to us, for if she had, we would have plainly seen that for soft-tissue sarcoma, as well as for eight other types of common cancer, chemotherapy contributes nothing whatsoever to 5-year survival rates. And thus, considering the extreme side effects of chemo, not only would it not have helped our mother at all, but it would most likely, as the honest surgeon had told us, have killed her in the first session.
Yet there she was, chatting on and on, doing her utmost to persuade us to accept just that "treatment".
Of course, we refused. I remember making a few quite pointed remarks before we left, saying that we were not interested, and that that was the first and last time we ever wanted to see her. Steve said afterwards that I may have been "too hard on her". I didn't agree. And now, over five years later, as I view the scientific study that shows plainly that chemo contributes nothing to the cure, or even to the five-year survival rates, of soft-tissue sarcoma, I feel that (pardon the emotion) I was being far too nice to that quack, and that a slap in the face would indeed have been the most appropriate response!
In the end, my mother survived only another few weeks − weeks that were marked by her further rapid physical decline, extreme physical suffering, and emotional agony. Those weeks were the most difficult of my entire life, and yet I wouldn't trade them for anything, for they gave us all the opportunity to take gradual leave, to let Mom know how much we loved her, and how much we appreciated all that she had done for us over the course of our lives. Had we decided to go the chemo route, we would have been robbed of those final weeks. Our mother would have been killed by chemo, probably within a day at most, or even an hour. But hey, the oncologist would have picked up an easy $10,000, so at least someone would have been happy!
Later on in this book, I am going to tell you about that tremendously important 2004 study that I found. If you (or a loved one) have cancer, it is absolutely essential that you know about it. I am fully aware that almost no doctor or even oncologist would ever tell you about it, for if people knew the real statistics, many would reject chemotherapy, and that would lead to a yearly loss of billions of dollars for the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex".
Yes, things really are that grim. Yet I am not asking you to simply "take my word for it." In addition to giving you links so that you yourself can download the study, I will mention books and articles that I've found that point out all-too clearly the fact that the main goal of the Industry is not your health and welfare, but their profits.
Nonetheless, don't be afraid that if you read this book, you will be robbed of your "final hope". For some types of cancer, there is plain evidence that chemotherapy can help. The major study on "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy" only deals with 22 types of cancer (of course, there are many more varieties). And you should know that even if yours is one of the more common types reported on, there is definitely hope. However, that hope does not come from the "Industry" at all. It comes rather from a method of treatment that is increasingly gaining recognition among alternative physicians throughout the world − and yes, even some honest "traditional physicians", those for whom the welfare of their patients is infinitely more important than their own financial income.
What is this type of treatment? Here it is in a nutshell:
Doing everything you possibly can to strengthen your immune system: immediately adopting a diet of optimal nutrition; giving up any bad habits that may be weakening your system; exercise; and a careful evaluation of your mental and emotional state.
Yes, it can be as simple − and as cheap! − as that.
Allow me to summarize the main points I am going to make in this volume:
1) Cancer treatment today − and medicine in general − is a huge industry involving extremely powerful corporations for whom financial profit is the number one goal.
2) Any method of treatment that is not "main stream", and that for this reason will not contribute to the profits of the industry, is routinely played down, quietly suppressed, or outright opposed by that industry.
3) Even many doctors are not aware of the facts about many types of drugs they prescribe, due to manipulations in the flow of information by the Pharmaceutical Industry.
4) For cancer specifically, the very best treatment may well be one that you yourself can do, all but free: namely, adopting an optimally healthy nutrition plan, as well as a change in life-style: getting exercise, giving up smoking and drinking, etc. And yes, there are cases where such changes actually cured people completely of cancer − even people who were late-stage four, and who had been given only weeks to live by conventional doctors. I will tell you about some of these cases that I myself am familiar with, though of course, there are many more.
5) If you or a loved one have cancer, you absolutely must do everything you can to get the real facts, so that you do not fall prey to the propaganda of the "Industry". I use the word "propaganda" not as an exaggeration, but as a precise description of what is being disseminated today, at sites such as that of the American Cancer Society, cancer.org. I will delve into this more deeply in the chapter: How to deceive People without telling a single Lie .
6) The Pharmaceutical Industry routinely does as much as it can to manipulate the flow of information concerning the oft-times harmful drugs they produce. They do this by regularly not publishing studies that show that certain drugs
a) have no more of a positive effect than a placebo;
b) have side effects that are downright dangerous;
c) are very expensive and are often less effective than cheaper ones. And they do all of this for one clear purpose: to make even more money.
7) Through such tactics, even physicians themselves are regularly deceived by the Industry.
8) As a patient, you have the right to know the truth right down to the very last detail as far as your illness, the drugs prescribed to you, and possible treatment methods are concerned. And as regards chemotherapy, you will find clear evidence in this book that you are not being told those truths, and may well be receiving chemotherapy for a type of cancer for which chemo will do you no good, but will only contribute to further weakening your system − and yes, possibly killing you before your time.
9) Doctors are often "seduced" into continuing to prescribe the Industry's drugs by what a growing number of physicians – and concerned governments − term as "bribery": the bestowing of lavish gifts on the doctors, that can easily amount to $10,000 in a mere four months (see this ABC news article if you don't believe me; you will be shocked). This is clearly a blatant conflict of interests, and should be banned by an act of congress as soon as possible.
10) As dire as the present situation is − and it is absolutely atrocious − there is some good news, too. And that is, that we the people can join forces, rise up and do something to correct this shockingly corrupt system. We can demand our rights as citizens, taxpayers and patients. In the final chapter, I will tell you exactly what you yourself can do to join the movement. No, I will not ask you for money; I will leave the greed to the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry. Rather, I will suggest some very simple steps that you can take to help get America's health-care system on the right track: a track that always favors you the patient, and not the voracious financial interests of the "Industry".