The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
By Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton M.
2005

AIMS:

The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS:

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.

CONCLUSION:

As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.

Max's Note: As the heading says Ludicrous, Abysmal Chemo success rates, Makes it look like absolute premeditated murder, and should be made illegal. Who in their right mind would consider less than 3% success at anything let alone trust your life on these figures. (Would you like a free ticket to any destination you chose on a new form of travel just invented. 3% of all the people who take tickets reach their destination alive at this stage.) Get what I am saying? The fact there is no mathematical improvement in the number of cancer deaths relative to population growth, means we have not improved since these figures were released. In fact in 20 years we have gone from 1 in 5 men (20 in 100) dying from cancer to 1 in 3 men (33 in 100) dying from cancer. That is going in the wrong direction.

Therefore doctors (and possibly nurses) are knowingly poisoning cancer sufferers knowing full well they are actually killing their patients. (Nurses must know what happens when Chemo touches their skin, they use gloves so they don't get burnt. What does the burning chemo do to people's veins and organs?) And the manufacturers are equally guilty, knowing they are supplying these poisons to be used to kill people. This is no better than mass killings we have witnessed and condemned in the past. Millions are killed every year, and no one is ever held responsible.

Because everyone wants to trust their doctor as he/she is who they trust their lives with, it will take a long time before the whole Medical Industry is made to take responsability for he way they have used cancer as a golden goose at the expense of patients lives.

The fact doctors think there no known cure is no defence. They know people recover from cancer, but will try and stop anyone who is responsible in any way from successfully helping cancer.

Consequetly it is everyone's responsability to take their own life and health in their hands, do what they know is going to work ndon't be fooled by the lies and misleading advertising, lies and look at the facts and results.

If doctors can cure your cancer why are we paying billions of dollars of tax payers money, as well as fund raising and making donations into cancer research?

If I was not successful, or the people who I showed YouCureYourCancer, doctors would not need to try and stop me. There would be no successful cancer sufferers to tell their story decades on.

I believe that to offer any treatment with the potential to kill or poison, there must be proof the medication has some chance of 5 year survival. I don't know what figure you might consider is appropiate, everyone will have their own opinions. Perhaps it is a matter for politicians to legislate. Obviously 100% is the goal. I think under 25% survival is unthinkable. Perhaps 50% is a goal to start with, but I feel strongly 75% is a fair expectation. No other industry can expect to survive or be given a monopily on any business with a success rate under to 90%. (Flight Safety, Car safety, Water Safety, Electricity safety, Phone Safety, Electrical Good Safety, Building Site safety etc?). Otherwise the patient is probably better off with Paliative care only, with free access to other options the individual may prefer to use, like alternative or natural until the Cancer Industry can offer plausable successful products.