If you are being diagnosed with cancer, you will invariably be directed to undergo surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, etc. These seemed to be the only so-called “proven” paths to take. Other paths: Complementary and alternative therapies, according to their doctors, are suspect, “unproven” and downright abracadabras. This is also the kind of message you are always bombarded with, even in the media. All over the world, whether in developed or developing countries, the same perception is being cultivated and “sold” to the general public. Dr. David Brownstein, in the foreword to the book Avoiding Breast Cancer, wrote: “Drug companies want us to believe that a ‘magic’ drug will cure cancer. This will never happen.”

Reading numerous books and research papers on cancer treatment, I couldn’t help but feel disappointed. Much has been written about a combination of some poisons being better than another combination of other poisons. Data were presented, but modified, to produce “statistically significant” results that did not mean much in terms of cure, survival, or preservation of quality of life. Unfortunately, most of these “educated” people are playing their games by the same rules that aim to preserve the status quo and safeguard their own interests. His opinions are as dogmatic and solidly grounded as concrete. Dissenting views and forms are often not tolerated and are even punished with the loss of the right to practice.

Fortunately, despite this, the sky does not remain gray all the time. Sometimes in some corner of this world there are brave and honest people who would stand up and do and say things that others would not dare to say or do. Ask your doctors: “what is the contribution of chemotherapy to the cure of your cancer”? What kind of responses do you get?

“Oh, you have a 50:50 chance. If you don’t have chemotherapy, you have three months and you die.”

Or, “If you do chemotherapy you have a 90% chance.”

Don’t be fooled and don’t misunderstand. Ask them what the meaning of chance is. The possibility of curing the cancer or the possibility of dying from the treatment? Don’t be afraid to ask, even if this is done at the risk of being kicked out of your doctor’s office (some patients have told me this has happened to them). It is better to be kicked out of your office than to be kicked out of this world!

If you’re looking for an easy, ready-to-use canned answer, get it from your doctor. Unfortunately, “instant noodle” type responses could lead to disappointment later on. In life, I always believe that nothing good ever comes easily. You need to do serious hard work to know how to do it better.

Do you want to know what is the contribution or the exact role of chemotherapy in the cure of cancer?

If you want to know the truth, read this article: “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in malignant tumors in adults.” This study report is exactly what cancer patients have been looking for. We have been waiting for that answer: what exactly is the contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in cancers?

The three authors of the article are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and Radiation Therapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, Senior Specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Director, Research Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.

Without a doubt, these researchers are highly reputable professionals. They know what they are saying. Their opinions are worth, if not more valuable, than those of any doctor you have consulted about your cancer.

They publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, volume 16, number 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a highly respected peer-reviewed medical journal. Your article was submitted for publication on August 18, 2003. It was reviewed and finally accepted for publication on June 3, 2004. This means that the article has been reviewed by medical peers and has gone through the normal peer review process. peers. It is not a way to enter the pages of the medical journal through the back door and twist your arm. Given the above, you and I (and even clinicians!) should have no doubts about the credibility and validity of what you say in your research paper.

Why publish such an article?

I can’t give you that answer, but I can only guess. In a radio interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Dr. Morgan was asked this question: “Is this, I wondered, an internal battle, the radiation therapist’s revenge?” Dr. Morgan responded, “Well, one can say that cynically, but the reason I did it was because we were sick and tired of hearing about these new drugs and it wasn’t really taking hold at all. And the The reason I did that article was to really show that there has been no improvement in survival, or that the improvement has been very, very modest despite all these new drugs and new combinations and bone marrow transplants.”

Albert Einstein said: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” This world is lucky to have people like Professor Morgan and his colleagues to speak their minds. We salute you.

Is something wrong with the paper?

There is nothing wrong with the paper and the data presented. Their study was based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs, the gold standard of medical evidence) published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2004. Cancer registry data in Australia and the USA were also obtained. The contribution of chemotherapy to survival in those older than 20 years with 22 major cancers was studied.

If there is something wrong with this document, it is because it tells the whole truth about chemotherapy. And the truth hurts. The authors did not “sing” the same tune as the majority of the herd. That’s the difference (or the bad!).

What did they say?

The absolute real-life data contained in this article is very surprising: “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.” In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy is no more than 3%.

Can this be true?

Well, they are the experts. And so they said, loud and clear. In fact, some doctors in Australia were angry. People said the document was “misleading and unhelpful.” The Australian Prescriber editorial (The Emperor’s New Clothes: Can Thermotherapy Survive? 29:2-3. 2006) quoted Professor Michael Boyer, Head of Medical Oncology at the Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney as saying: “The fact is, from a patient perspective, they’re not really interested in how much chemotherapy contributes to the cure of all patients… I don’t think this article will help from a patient perspective.”

Medical experts like to claim that they understand patients better than the patients themselves. So they give authoritative pronouncements on behalf of patients. I am sorry I disagree. I think patients know themselves better. Do you agree that you are not interested in knowing how much chemotherapy contributes to the cure of your cancer? To me, this is the answer that each and every patient wants to know before undergoing chemotherapy. But unfortunately, no such answer is ever provided. And if patients ask too many questions, they will be scolded or kicked out of medical offices.

In the same radio interview with ABC, Professor Michael Boyer was again quoted as saying, “The fact is if you start…saying how much chemotherapy costs…the numbers start to go up…it probably goes up to 5% or 6%. I guess the important thing is that it doesn’t go up to 50% or 60%. This is really mind-boggling. The 2.3% percentage was discussed. According to Professor Boyer, it could be 5% to 6 %.

Do we need to split the hairs? What is so different between 2.3% and 6%? Is that a big or significant enough difference? If you ask any cancer patient what the difference is between a 3% chance of cure and a 6% chance of cure, most of them will just say “peanuts.” If you told cancer patients that their chemo treatment is only contributing 3% or 6% of their cure, I guess MOST patients would just go away and never see their oncologists again!

But for some statisticians and researchers with “tunnel vision”, 2.3% and 6% is a big “statistical” difference and the difference is significant (to use scientific jargon). You can “massage” the data to say this. If you do chemo-X, you get 2%, if you do chemo-Y, you get 4%. You can twist the picture and say that chemo-Y is 100% better than chemo-X. This is how “educated people” manipulate their data to make it look and sound good.

So what’s your verdict?

Would you accept chemotherapy knowing that the benefit is only about 3%? Human beings differ in our perspectives. So be your own judge.

What do we do with such truth?

There seems to be a bit of a buzz in Australia, because this is a job done in Australia. But for the rest of the world, in the US, UK, Europe, etc. no one bothers to know or comment. This NEW truth is of no importance or consequence. The truth, as is often done, if you clash with the Establishment, you can get a quick burial. Not even the so-called “independent media” say anything.