CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: No its not
  Views: 8,076
Published: 13 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,621,110

Re: No its not

"Who said I was disputing the figures you posted, abysmal as they are for oral, oesophagus, liver, lung, brain, pancreas, lyphoma, ovary, multiple myeloma and leukemia?   The tables I posted was in a study published in Clinical Oncology.  It has not been withdrawn and neither has it been disputed.  Who said that 151,665 patients died due to chemotherapy?"

As "abysmal" as they are, they're much better than the 2 - 3% purported by you.  (A 65% survival rate at 20 years for breast cancer patients is abysmal?  If you take similar aged women and garner their 20 year survival rate, I think it would be an interesting comparison.)

"The study, as was clearly stated in my post, demonstrated that chemotherapy alone only contributed between 2.1 percent and 2.3 percent to 5 year cancer survival rates."

You are simply twisting and distorting the facts and didn't read the analysis of the study that you presented.  The chemotherapy survival rate is NOT 2 - 3% as you imply.

If you go to this site:

You will see that your study is blown out of the water.  From the site:

"The researchers then extrapolated this number to all cancers. The average 5-year cancer survival in Australia at the time of the study was 60%. On the basis of the extrapolation of the outcome of their study, the researchers estimated that the average contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival would be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.  Nowhere in the study does it say that only 3306 patients survived their chemotherapy and that consequently 151,665 patients died because of it."

That refers to those to whom chemo was attributed to be the sole (as in only) factor in their five year survival.  As you well know, chemo is used as a supplement in other treatments including surgery and that the total survival rate for Australia.  You are still trying to say that only 2 - 3% of cancer patients survive chemotherapy and that is simply not true.

"Anaximperator is a notoriaus mainstream apologist whose opinions here are about as highly regarded as those of quackwatch.  It appears from your posts that you are following right along in Anaximperator's footsteps. Good luck selling that viewpoint here."

Once again, you kill the messenger and not the message.

"Now, you have stated your case, such as it is, and I have rebutted.  This is not a debate forum.  If you wish to debate mainstream cancer and alternatives, take it to the Cancer Debate forum."

Yes, you've rebutted - but all of your rebuttal is biased and unsupported by facts.

Like I've posted elsewhere, would you rather that doctors establish death panels and throw people like Greg Anderson in there without any support seeing as he had only 30 days to live, or would you rather support continuing to give all cancer patients some glimmer of hope as he had, and he survived.  That's the bottom line Tony.

If you wish to take it to the debate forum - then that's where your original post belongs.




Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2023

5.297 sec, (2)