Can Radio Waves Treat Cancer?

1.  This is not a mainstream medical site.  We don't cotton to words like national cancer hotline, which I assume is ran by the American Cancer Society?  And, I am sure there are many alternatives to surgery,  Alivizatos, for one.  But, there are others.  Some people cannot even have surgery for cancer because it is metastasized or too hard to get too.

2.   How would we know anything about the aim, or much about it at all for that matter, when human trials have not even began yet?  I am sure their "aim" will be fine when they finally get to humans.  And, I really hope they do, because normally the government suppresses cancer cures and treatments.  This one seems to have slipped through the cracks, so far.

I should have been more specific in saying that chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes completely cancer free and the cancer never returns).  The fact is that for those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the survival rate for those who had no treatment at all increases steadily and for those who had mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.

Sources: Dr. Ralph Moss and Webster Kehr, the "Cancer Tutor"

What the chart in the above post fails to address is the actual success rates for mainstream medicine as well as relect some of the ways that statistics for cure rates (defined by mainsteam medicine as merely surviving for five years) by mainstream medicine are grossly overstated.  Here are six ways that mainstream medicine skews cure rates:

1. By re-defining "cure" as "alive five years after diagnosis: instead of using the word's real meaning, which is "cancer-free". Thus a patient could still have cancer the entire five years and die one day after the 5th anniversary date of diagnosis and still be recorded as a cure.

2. By simply omitting certain groups of people, such as African Americans, or by omitting certain types of cancer, such as all lung cancers patients, from their statistical calculations.

3. By including types of cancer that are not life-threatening and are easily curable, such as skin cancers and DCIS.

(In the chart in the above post, many of those who die, even after almost 20 years, still die of cancer.  Also, the statistics include many such easily curable cancers, such as localized cancers of the cervix, non-spreading cancers and melanomas, as well as "cancers" that many feel are not true cancers at all, merely pre-cances. For example, DCIS is a pre-cancerous condition that is 99% curable and makes up 30% of all breast cancers.  Deduct that 30% and the figures are much less impressive.)

4. By allowing earlier detection to erroneously imply longer survival.

5. By deleting patients from cance treatment studies who die too soon, even if that is on the 89th day of a 90 day chemotherabpy protocol.

6. By using a questionable adjustment called "relative survival rate" where they get to deduct a certain number of cancer victims who statistics say would have died during the five years of other causes such as heart attacks, car wrecks, etc.

Source: Tanya Harter Pierce "Outsmart Your Cancer"

These outrageous "fudges", as Ms. Harter too kindly calls them, have all been incorporated into cancer cure statistics to hide the fact that the war on cancer has been hopelessly lost and wrongly waged.  In the opinion of many who are far more knowledgeable and qualified than I am, the so-called War on Cancer is little more than a hoax.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."  - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).

"The National Anti-Cancer Program is a bunch of sh*t."
- James Watson, Nobel Laureate for Medicine in 1962 , joint discoverer of the double helix of DNA, and for two years a member of the US Joint Advisory Committee on Cancer

When it comes to mainstream successes, of the three major mainstream treatment methods, surgery is the only one with respectable success rates and even then it is only successful the vast majority of the time in those who have operable types of cancer that has not yet metastisized at the time of diagnosis - and most cancers are not detected prior to metastisizing.

When it comes to Chemo, in the words of Dr. Ralph Moss:

"Chemo has some success in a few kinds of cancer, but in the conventional cancers which chemotherapy sometimes "works" such as small-cell lung cancers, the actual survival benefit is reckoned in weeks or months, not in years.  And during this time, the patient is likely to experience major, even life threatening, side effects from the treatment, so the overall advantage to the patient is moot."

Radiation results are even more dismal.  In some studies, patients who opted for radiation have had lower survival rates than those who did not have radiation.

Sources: Tanya Harter Pierce, Dr. Rath Foundation

Another common deception of mainstream medicine is to quote "response rates", which is defined as having a 50% tumor shrinkage for a period of twelve months.  It has nothing to do with cure rates or long term survival, but it is the statistic that is often quoted to patient by their oncologists.

Yet another common deception is the use of "remission" to imply cure, when it is nothing of the sort. As Webster Kehr writes in "The War Between Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine"