Cancer treatments are ineffective

[cmamad id=”3583″ align=”center” tabid=”display-desktop” mobid=”display-desktop” stg=””]

This is a study that I wanted you to see about cancer survival.

So in this newsletter, I’m going to spend a little time talking about cancer treatments.

More and more people get cancer.

Then they get treated for cancer — and either survive or die from cancer.

But cancer treatments are ineffective.

So it’s important to look at what’s really going on here.

And I found a great article to help see what’s really happening.

I wanted you to see that this article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

This is probably the most prestigious medical journal in the entire world.

This is not some quack study.

Studying people diagnosed with terminal illnesses can be heart-wrenching.

And it comes with a number of ethical and compassionate issues.

[cmamad id=”3584″ align=”center” tabid=”display-desktop” mobid=”display-desktop” stg=””]

Because of the ethics and sensitivity of the situation, researchers did the study at the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center.

This is research hospital where they treat terminal cancer.

So they’re up to the minute on what treatments are available for cancer.

So everyone involved was not only professional but also understood the needs of the patients.

All the people in the study were expected to live no more than one year.

Volunteers for this study were first matched into pairs with identical situations.

Then each pair was separated into one of two groups.

The first patient would be in the group which received conventional cancer treatment — chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and so forth.

The patient was in the second group who chose to go in an alternative treatment route.

This group chose vitamins, supplements, fasting, and other alternative treatments.

In other words, they opted for what would be considered holistic therapy treatments.

So both groups had an identical set of circumstances but were only divided in treatment.

And what the researchers found at the end of the study was shocking, and not a little scary.

There was no difference in survival between patients treated with conventional medicine, and those treated with alternative medicine.

This study does use people who are terminal.

They had terminal cancer — pancreatic cancer, small cell lung carcinoma, and other terminal cancers.

But patients hope that by going through treatment, they are extending their life and quality of living.

But the fact remains that the treatments that these patients endured with chemotherapy and radiation did not extend their lives at all.

The patients who chose not to go through conventional medicine lived just as long!


How does anyone explain this type of result?

And this is not the only study like this.

Another study analyzed a large number of patients treated for cancer.

Again, these were patients who were quite advanced in cancer.

This illustrates the fallacy of the new drug.

What I mean is that there is always some new drug treatment that is going to work miracles.
The new drug is always the new chemotherapy treatment for cancer that may cost $10,000 or $20,000 per treatment.

This new drug is supposedly going to extend the patient’s life, and they’re in a desperate position.

Typically, the insurance companies don’t like to pay for these expensive treatments.

The cancer patient spends a lot of time fighting their insurance company to get them to pay for these treatments.

And the whole time, the patient is suffering from the cancer and the false hope that the new drug will save them.

But this study shows that there is no such thing as a new drug.

Our results showed that the response rates for chemotherapy treatment of late-stage cancer were generally low at 7.4%, regardless of the cancer type or drug regimen used.

We found no evidence that response rates differed between different chemotherapy drug types.

The authors found NO evidence that different drug types helped patients live longer.

There was NO evidence that these different drugs improved the patient’s quality of life.

In the end, these treatments cost a lot of money (often from the patient’s empty pocket) and offer no real benefit.

I call the way that we are treating cancer the “slash and burn strategy.”

Kill it, cut it out, annihilate it… slash it and burn it.

And it simply doesn’t work.

There is abundant evidence of this.

And yet people who are diagnosed with cancer will continually go through the same chemotherapy and radiation therapy that has been shown not to work.

Of course, I’m going to get a ton of emails from people who say, “I had “x type” of cancer, and then I had chemotherapy and radiation, and they got rid of the cancer.”

“How do you explain this?”

Of course, some people will respond to chemotherapy and radiation in some ways.

They may even go “cancer free” and be “cured.”

But if they are cured, why do their doctors continually monitor them for the cancer “coming back?”

If you wait long enough, the cancer often comes back.

Many studies show that cancer is not actually destroyed with chemotherapy or radiation.

The treatment just causes the cancer to lay dormant.

It’s not dead.  It’s not gone… it’s playing possum.

This is why cancer is often said to be “in remission” instead of cured.

When it “comes back,” cancer cells have already spread throughout the body.

And by then, the patient is weakened by the cancer and previous treatments.

There has to be a better answer to the problem.

And there is.

The answer to fixing cancer is to support the organism.

To truly beat cancer, it’s necessary to support the metabolism of the organism.

We know this because of a man named Dr. Otto Warburg.

Many years ago, Dr. Warburg won the Nobel Prize when he discovered there was such a thing as a “cancer field.”

The cancer field is a combination of chemicals that spread through the body and create tumors.

This means that cancer isn’t just in the location of where the tumor has been found.

The cancer is a whole body condition with these cancer chemicals spread all over the body.

We just know to look for the tumors, we don’t look for the cancer field.

And what creates a cancer field is poor metabolism.

There are always going to be two approaches to medicine.

One approach is the slash and burn, cut it out, radiate it, kill it.

The other approach is to support the body’s metabolism, raise metabolism, improve health, so that the body then gets rid of the cancer.

There’s a lot of evidence that the slash and burn cancer methods do not work.

So I’d go with the metabolism correction if I had cancer.

Matt Cook is editor-in-chief of Daily Medical Discoveries. Matt has been a full time health researcher for 26 years. ABC News interviewed Matt on sexual health issues not long ago. Matt is widely quoted on over 1,000,000 websites. He has over 300,000 daily newsletter readers. Daily Medical Discoveries finds hidden, buried or ignored medical studies through the lens of 100 years of proven science. Matt heads up the editorial team of scientists and health researchers. Each discovery is based upon primary studies from peer reviewed science sources following the Daily Medical Discoveries 7 Step Process to ensure accuracy.
Survival and Quality of Life among Patients Receiving Unproven as Compared with Conventional Cancer Therapy

Chemotherapy for Late-Stage Cancer Patients: Meta-Analysis of Complete Response Rates