After diagnosing a malignant tumour, the first question is: shall it be removed by surgery. Off course after surgery the tumour is no longer present, but the reason (toxic substances, continuous stress) is still not eliminated. Only the symptom had been removed. This is like taking a painkiller against a pain without looking what is the reason for this pain. Sooner or later another tumour will come back. In main-stream medicine they are still talking about metastases in this case. To avoid them, chemotherapy and/or radiation starts. Both methods aim to genetic substance in cancer cells. Neither rays nor chemotherapeutics are able to identify cancer cells specifically. They kill each cell that cleaves at this moment.
They use a property of genetic material. Except during cleaving, genetic material (DNA) is protected by histones. The toxic substances of chemotherapy as well as rays are applied in a dose that do not damage protected DNA but they activate (wake up) progenitor stem cells in body tissues. After some time (some months to 2 years) new malignant tumours develop. DNA in mitochondria is not protected at any time. Mitochondria are destroyed and are lost for ever. The cell no longer has the ability of apoptosis. In main-stream medicine this is also called metastasis (unfortunately the cancer has disseminated). Since the reasons (toxic substances, continuous stress) are not treated, the fate of the patient is determined.
You can hear everywhere however, chemotherapy heals cancer. There are people who recovered and are healthy. A little story can explain this contradiction: Four people have got a serious cold. One takes a new medication, the second chicken bouillon with ginger, the third vitamin C and number four still goes to work and recovers in a pub with beer and cigarettes. 10 days later all of them are healthy. At least for number four it seem clear that it was not the work-beer-cigarette-therapy that made him healthy. It was not due to but in spite of the therapy. To find out what really helps, I need a big group of patients and give the therapy to them while the others receive a dummy (placebo) and look how quickly they recover.
In cancer, healing means how many are still alive after 5 years. In the German research centre for cancer the 5 years lifespan for specific types of cancer with and without chemotherapy had been compared (Abel 1992). It turned out that chemotherapy was of no advantage for solid tumours (epithelial).Only cases of leukaemia and some cancers in early childhood had positive results. This research had been repeated (Morgan, Ward, Barton 2004) with a similar result. From a scientific point of few the logic consequence would be to stop chemotherapies because they are good for nothing. In reality no oncologist bothered about these results. It is only possible to speculate about the reasons.
If this is true, where do all the fantastic results with new cancer drugs originate? Are these lies? No, the figures are correct in most cases. But most people (including physicians) are not familiar with statistics. At first the benchmark for healing is never the 5-years lifespan, but remission rate, how often a tumour had been shrinking. This is not compared to not treated patients but to a standard medication. If the standard medication is ineffective (in relation to the 5-year lifespan) it is senseless if a new drug improves remission rate. Following such studies, they are not continued (or not published) after 2-3 years. Too many patients died from so called metastases (the cancer did win!).
For a scientist statistics about lifespans of specific types of cancer really sound ludicrous. If treated according to the standard therapy mortality looks like this (graphic).
One part of patient dies during the first phase. If the first tumour is coped, metastases follow. In the following 6 month to two to three years another part dies. Who survives dies in the following years mostly not from but with cancer. Arithmetically it is possible to calculate a mean survival time. This is wrong however. It is mathematically senseless to calculate a mean, if the distribution is not near to a Gaussian distribution. The mean can be a point where nearly nobody dies. But these are prognoses you will hear from your doctor. For all people examining big mass of data it is clear, there are three groups of patients. For a real prognosis it would be necessary to know which group a patient belongs to. This is almost impossible, however.