Years since chemotherapy is denigrated by many oncologists, French and American, not children, who have dared to express doubts as to the cures obtained by the classical way.
Hardin B Jones, then professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, had already told the press in 1956 to the alarming results of a study on the cancer that had held for twenty years for cancer patients and that had led him to the conclusion that no untreated patients die earlier than those receiving chemotherapy, rather the opposite. "Patients who have refused all treatment lived an average of twelve and a half years. Those who have undergone surgery and other traditional treatments have lived an average of only three years [1]. " Dr. Jones also unveiled the issue of the fabulous sums generated by the 'Cancer business. " Destabilizing conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted. (Walter Last, The Ecologist, vol. 28, No. 2, March-April 1998)
On October 4, 1985, Prof. Georges Mathé confirmed to L'Express: "There is growing cancers because the diagnosis is much earlier (*), but not control it as well as they say, even though chemotherapy is defended primarily by chemotherapists and laboratories [what he called the "cancer-connection"], and for good reason: they live it. If I had a tumor would not go to an anticancer center "(cf. Le Monde, May 4, 1988).
In turn, Dr. Martin Shapiro wrote in an article "chimiothérapie: Huile de Perlimpinpin? "(Chemotherapy: Snake Oil?):" Some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that this treatment useful, others are deceived, no doubt, by the optimism of the scientific literature on chemotherapy. Others respond to economic stimulation. Those who practice it can earn more practicing chemotherapy lavishing comfort and relief to dying patients and their families. " (Cf. Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1987).
This view is widely shared by Drs E. Pommateau and M. d'Argent think that chemotherapy "is nothing but a process of destruction of malignant cells as surgery or radiotherapy. Not solve the crucial problem of host reaction should be, as a last resort, the only research to stop cancer growth '(Leçons of cancérologie pratique).
Meanwhile, Prof. Henri Joyeux, cancer specialist in Montpellier, has repeatedly stated that "are huge financial interests that can explain that scientific truth is, even today, too often hidden: 85% chemotherapies are questionable, ie useless. "
For them, as for many other doctors, the only cases of cure with this treatment are cases that can heal spontaneously, ie, in which guests can organize their own defenses. It is difficult to be more clear: chemotherapy is useless! And for the progression of cases of healing, Dr. Jean-Claude Salomon, director of research at CNRS, cancer specialist, estimates that the survival rate five years after initial diagnosis has increased for the sole reason that they know make earlier diagnoses, but if it is accompanied by a decrease in mortality, increased survival rate five years is not an index of progress. "Early diagnosis is often only the effect of lengthening the duration of the disease with its attendant anxiety. This contradicts the statements concerning the intended therapeutic advances. " (Cf. Qui decides notre santé. Le citoyen face aux experts, Bernard Cassou et Michel Schiff, 1998). Dr. Salomon accurate true cancers and tumors that certainly would never have caused the cancer disease are recognized without distinction, contributing to artificially increase the percentage of cancers "cured". This also increases obviously the cancers "declared".
Moreover, a fact confirmed by Dr. Thomas Dao, who was director of breast surgery at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo from 1957 to 1988: "Despite the widespread use of chemotherapy, the mortality rate of cancer Mom has not changed in the last 70 years. " And by John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, who published in 1985 a review in Scientific American: "Apart from some rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement by chemotherapy in the mortality of major cancers. It has never been established that any cancer can be cured with chemotherapy. "
New confirmation of Dr. Albert Braverman, hematology and cancer specialist in New York, in Lancet: "Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with an optimism not discouraged by an almost inevitable failure [...] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975 , is now curable "(cf. The Cancérologie dans les années 1990 he, vol. 337, 1991, p.901).
As Dr. Charles Moertal, cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic, admits: "Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects, and after all the patients we have treated have paid this price, only a small fraction is rewarded by a transitional period of incomplete tumor regression. "
Alan Nixon, former president of the American Chemical Society, is even more radical: "As a chemist trained to interpret publications, I can hardly understand how physicians can ignore the evidence that chemotherapy long ago, much more harm than good '.
Ralph Moss is a non-medical scientist who studies cancer for decades. Read articles on this topic in prestigious, such as Lancet, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Journal of the American Medical Association, New Scientist magazine, and has published a book, The Cancer Industry [2]: "Finally, there is no evidence of that chemotherapy prolongs life in most cases, is a big lie and say that there is a correlation between the decrease of tumor and lengthening the life of the patient. " Confess that he believed before chemotherapy, but experience has shown him his error: "The conventional cancer treatment is so toxic and inhumane that I fear more than dying of cancer. We know that this therapy does not work-not regret it if it worked more cancer than pneumonia. [...] If, however, most alternative treatments, regardless of the evidence of their effectiveness, are prohibited, forcing patients to go to failure because they have no alternative. "
Dr. Maurice Fox, professor emeritus of biology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) [3] has found, like many of his peers, that cancer patients who refused medical treatment had a mortality rate lower than that accepted them.
The Cancer Center at McGill University in Canada has sent a questionnaire to 118 medical specialists in lung cancer to determine the degree of trust that is granted to products that university scientists were evaluating. Were asked to imagine that they had cancer and being told what medicine choose from six ongoing trials. There were 79 responses from physicians, including 64 which, ie, 81% would not accept to participate in trials of chemotherapy with Cisplatin they were by testing and 58 other physicians from 79, ie, 73% felt that they the assays in question were unacceptable, taking into account the inefficiency of the products and their high degree of toxicity. [4]
Moreover Dr. Ulrich Abel, German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg-Mannheim Cancer Center, has reviewed all documents published on chemotherapy in more than 350 medical centers worldwide. After having analyzed for many years, thousands of publications, it has been found that the overall success rate of chemotherapy worldwide was "regrettable", only 3%, and there is simply no scientific evidence indicating that chemotherapy could "appreciably prolong the life of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." He describes chemotherapy "vague scientific field" and states that at least 80% of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is useless and the "new costumes Emperor" looks, so that neither the doctor nor the patient wish forego chemotherapy. Dr. Abel concludes: "Many oncologists have to admitted that chemotherapy prolongs the life of patients. It is an opinion based on an illusion that is not supported by any clinical study "[5]. This study has never been mentioned in the mainstream media has been completely buried. It is understandable why.
In summary, chemotherapy is highly toxic and can not differentiate between healthy cells and cancer cells. Slowly destroys the immune system that can no longer protect the body from ordinary diseases. 67% of people who die during cancer treatment do so because of opportunistic infections that have not been controlled by the immune system
The most recent and significant study has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology [6] and performed by three famous Australian oncologists, Prof. Graeme Morgan of Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney, the Pr Robyn Ward [7] University New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr Michael Barton, a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation of the Liverpool Health Service in Sydney.
His meticulous work is based on the analysis of the results of all controlled double blind conducted in Australia and the United States concerning the 5-year survival accredited by chemotherapy in adult cases during the January studies 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72 964 patients in Australia and 154,971 in the U.S., all treated with chemotherapy. This extensive study shows that you can not pretend, as usual, that is not nothing but some patients, allowing the systems set sweep at a stroke. The authors have deliberately chosen an optimistic estimate of the benefits, but despite this precaution publication proof that chemotherapy contributes nothing more than 2% more or less than the survival of patients after 5 years, is or 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the United States.
"Some therapists however remain optimistic and hope that the cytotoxic [8] chemotherapy prolongs the life of cancer patients," the authors said in his introduction. Rightly ask, how can a therapy that has contributed so little to the survival of patients during the past 20 years, continues to have such success in the sales statistics. It is true that they can answer that or just curious little disturbed patients have no choice: we are not proposing any other.
Mirshahi Massoud, a researcher at the University Pierre et Marie Curie and his team discovered in 2009 that new cell tumor micro-environment would be involved in resistance to chemotherapy in cancer cells and recurrence with metastasis. These cells have been called "Hospicel" serve as niches that have the ability to set a large number of cancer cells and protect them from the action of chemotherapy. The "Hospicel" come from the differentiation of bone marrow stem cells, and are present in spills in affected cancer patients (ascites, pleural effusions). Cancer cells together around a 'Hospicel' true form small cancerous nodules.
These nodules have been also identified immuno-inflammatory cells. Electron microscopy has shown that fusion had areas of membranes "Hospicel 'and cancer cells, which allow the passage of material from one cell to another. In addition, researchers have observed the transfer of material membranario "Hospicel" cancer cells, a phenomenon called trogocitosis. Many other mechanisms, such as the recruitment of immune suppressive cells or secretion of soluble factors by "Hospicel" also help the resistance of cancer cells against chemotherapy. In light of this importance, suggests that the 'nested' cancer cells on a 'Hospicel "could be considered as responsible for residual disease. For the latest research is to find susceptible to both destroy cancer cells and "Hospicel 'drugs. [9]
Other studies have recently appeared: The first, published in the journal Nature, indicates that a large majority of cancer studies are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent. Researchers do not come around rarely replicated the results of large studies "reference". Among 53 major studies on cancer therefore published in scientific journals of high level, 47 have been never be reproduced with similar results. This, however, is not new, since, in 2009, researchers at the Comprehensive Cancer Center of the University of Michigan, had also published findings famous cancer studies, all biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. And remaining public notoriety that certain medications cause cancer metastases.
This long list of publications, all negative and not exhaustive in terms of the "benefits" of chemotherapy, could be explained with the work of some researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston (USA), who found that two drugs used in chemotherapy cause the development of new tumors, and not the other! These new drugs that block blood vessels that "feed" the tumor. Specialists are called "anti-angiogenesis" treatments. These medicines, Glivec and Sutent (sunitinib and active principles imatinib), have been shown to reduce tumor size effect. However, small cell kill little studied so far, pericytes, which is kept under control tumor development. Freed from pericytes, the tumor is much easier to spread and metastasize to other organs. The Harvard researchers now believe that, although the primary tumor volume decreased by these drugs, cancer also becomes much more dangerous for patients! (Cancer Cell, 10 June 2012). Professor Raghu Kalluri, who has published these findings in the journal Cancer Cell, said: "If Vds only consider tumor development, the results would be good. But if Vds Toman distanciay looking set, inhibit tumor blood vessels can not contain cancer progression. Indeed, cancer spreads ".
Finally, a study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2012, could change the idea that we have made chemotherapy. Researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle have discovered, indeed, that this trigger, in the case of normal cells, the production of a protein which feeds the tumor.
While researchers work on resistance to chemotherapy in cases of metastaseados breast, prostate, lung and colon, have been discovered by chance that chemotherapy not only does not cure cancer, it activates a lot more growth and spread of cancer cells. Chemotherapy, standard method of cancer treatment today, forcing healthy cells release a protein that actually feeds cancer cells so they thrive and proliferate.
According to the study, chemotherapy induces healthy cells release a protein, WNT16B, which helps promote the survival and development of cancer cells. Chemotherapy also damages DNA definitely healthy cells, long-term damage that persists long after the end of treatment with chemo.
"When WNT16B protein is secreted, interacts with nearby cancer cells and makes them grow, expand and, most importantly, resist further therapy," explained study co-author Peter Nelson of the Centre de Recherche Fred Hutchinson Cancer Seattle, with respect to the totally unexpected finding. "Our results indicate that in the benign cells responses, rejection, can contribute directly to an increase in tumor dynamics," added the whole team as they observed.
Which is to say: Avoid chemotherapy increases the chances of recovering health.
How is it possible that a therapy that has contributed so little to the survival of patients during the past 20 years, continues to have such success in the sales statistics?. It is true that they can answer that or just curious little disturbed patients have no choice: we are not proposing any other except the "protocol". What pressure is subjected to the current cancer specialist treating the patient choose? Before the good doctor chose in his soul and conscience, according to the Hippocratic Oath, the best treatment for their patient. He thus compromised their personal responsibility after prolonged treatment with the patient.
"Since the 1990s, and particularly in increasingly authoritarian from cancer plan 2004 - freedom to treat the cancer specialist has disappeared in France and certain Western countries. With the fallacious pretext of quality of care, all patients dossiers are "discussed" in a multidisciplinary meeting, where, in fact, the ongoing therapeutic trial Testan new drugs is imposed by "community." The therapist who want to repeal this system, in particular to see the service in the participating lose their authorization to practice oncology 'is all possible problems. Dr. Nicole Delépine summarizes what can happen when one moves away from the strict protocols to suit the personal situation of the sick.
However, three of four doctors dare refuse chemo for themselves, in case of cancer, because of their ineffectiveness on the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. But this detail is hidden very well to the sick.
Dr. Jacques Lacaze, diploma in oncology and ardent advocate of the work of Dr. Gernez on the subject, believes that the only real solution is prevention. "Indeed, cancer has a hidden 8-year average life. During this long period, the embryo is very vulnerable cancer, can go under anything. ALL specialists admit this fact, but few of them advocated a policy of prevention. However, it is easy to do and put to work. We know that cancer incidence curve starts around age 40, so future installs cancer to age 32. The SUVIMAX study has shown that a simple supplementation with vitamins and minerals is sufficient to lower the incidence of cancer by about 30%. This study lasted 8 years. There have been no consequences in public health policy. Let us understand well, the pharmaceutical industry does not want to hear about it: no sawing the branch on which one is sitting.
The medical staff is under the umbrella of the "big bosses" that make rain and good weather and are generously paid by the industry (look on the internet, you will see that most of these great employers you are part of one form or another a laboratory). And most of the time doctors are without question! And wretches who think otherwise and answer chemotherapy, vaccines or antibiotics [...] I should add, because this applies to my practice and actual studies done by some specialized services, many qualified complementary or alternative products are effective, but banned and persecuted by the authorities under the orders of the pharmaceutical industry. "
To learn more about cancer prevention, you can check the web gernez.asso.fr.
Do not forget that only in this case the pressure of the persons concerned, ie, all of us will break this system
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario