Chemo Kills :(, Nature Heals :)! (Why chemotherapy almost never works long term)

WHY NATURAL METHODS ARE USUALLY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CHEMOTHERAPY AGAINST CANCER

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
When people are diagnosed with cancer, the conventional treatment recommendations are chemotherapy and radiation. There is much that is good in conventional medicine. It saves many lives that would have been lost in the past and some research says it adds ~7 years to people’s lives on average. But 1000s of doctors are now challenging some methods of fighting cancer, esp. the chemotherapy and radiation methods and saying that we need to follow healing methods from God and nature. And there’s a big difference between these 2 methods.

Many doctors and much research are showing these things:
1) Chemotherapy is a major cause of the death of many cancer patients.
2) Chemotherapy almost never affects the cancer stem cells that produce most of the cancer cells in the first place.
3) Chemotherapy is highly ineffective at curing cancer. Leading organizations say it can never cure cancer.
4) Chemotherapy doesn’t change the habits that cause cancer and/or distracts from the root causes of the cancer (and many doctors are not trained in these).
5) Studies have shown that even doctors can have misunderstandings about the effectiveness of chemotherapy because of manipulated statistics.
6) The BMJ reports that ~60-90% of the funding for the CDC/NIH in most developed countries comes from corporations that sell the drugs these agencies are supposed to be regulating, a severe case of corruption that endangers health.
7) Doctors don’t receive training in Biblical natural health treatment methods.
8) Statistics for chemotherapy success are manipulated and most studies cover 5 years or less.
9) Natural methods can have up to a 93% rate of curing cancer
10) Natural methods have worked and saved lives in many cases where conventional treatment methods failed.

For myself, from the research I have done, I would only do chemotherapy (or radiation) in 2 cases:
1) I would very reluctantly consider it if all biblical/natural methods had failed and not even sure I would do it then.
2) If forms of chemotherapy are developed that can target mostly or only the diseased cells and not damage healthy cells, that would follow the principle that some of God’s methods (some herbs for example are brilliant at killing cancer, but leaving healthy cells unharmed).

And there is some work being done in this area.
“Doctors and scientists think that various cancers grow in the human body when cancerous cells self-replenish through division. But one of the most common forms of treatment, chemotherapy, works by wiping out a wide range of cells indiscriminately, without focusing particularly on those that are the source of the cancer. By learning how and when cells self-renew, researchers hope to be able to pinpoint cancer originators and block those cells from duplicating without interfering with other healthy cells.”
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/does-body-really-replace-seven-years.htm

That is about the only context in which I or people who want to live should consider chemotherapy.

BEST ARTICLES/OVERVIEWS: If you don’t have a lot of time, these are a couple of the most important articles on the topic to check first.

1) NATURE WORKS BEST: This medical institute is the one that has the highest rate of treating cancer documented in peer reviewed research to my knowledge, even the most difficult kinds. They have demonstrated a 93% rate of curing or controlling even the worst cancers, if people follow their protocol.
https://natureworksbest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-Cancer-treatment-paper.2017.12.30.pdf

2) Is Chemotherapy Effective
https://icnr.com/articles/is-chemotherapy-effective (a report of this peer reviewed article on how chemotherapy is much less effective than most think: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630849)

3) Are drug regulators sufficiently independent from the companies they regulate?
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/investigation-are-drug-regulators-sufficiently-independent-from-the-companies-they-are-meant-to-regulate/

From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538

REAL CASES:
Here are 2 of many cases where natural methods cured cancer that conventional treatments very likely wouldn’t have worked or definitely failed.

A) Frankincense Used to Treat Brain Tumor: This tells the story of a young girl Allison Huish who changed to follow natural healthy methods of living and Frankincense oil to beat brain cancer. (This one is from the “Truth about Cancer” series, episode 1 I believe)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjC_GQ_uHQ

B) My Journey to Natural Medicine (testimony about how Dr. Axe and his mother tried chemotherapy at first…but it was hell..and after they thought they beat it, it still came back. So they tried a different approach, a holistic treatment protocol of healthy diet/juicing, probiotics, essential oils, exercise, positive mental outlook and others and beat and cured cancer forever this way)
http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FhBZ3zVezk

Mrs. Axe Tells Her Story (similar to the above link, but directly from her)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PA4TMB9z4w

MAIN ARTICLE: Why Chemotherapy Almost Never Works

INTRO:
Throughout history, there have been major conflicts between several methods of healing. Two of them are God’s methods and methods that originate from pagan philosophy.
A) GOD’S METHODS: God gave at least 40 methods of preventing and healing diseases in the health area alone in the Bible and many other principles of God in other areas contribute to improving health as well. Many have summarized some of the more important health methods of God as NEWSTART, Creation Health or Creation life and they are described well at these links:
https://www.newstart.com/about, https://www.newstart.com/videos/
https://www.adventhealth.com/adventhealth-press/creation-health-discovery https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/volunteertn/documents/tcvsl/tcvsl21-workshops/New%20Start%20and%20Taking%20Care%20of%20Ourselves.pdf

Much science including from Harvard, Yale, etc. shows that the principles of God in many areas (health, psychology, relationships, economics, etc.) make immune system that God gave us stronger. The immune system is by far the most most sophisticated disease fighting machine in the world by a long shot, with its innate and adaptive sections and numerous different cells and organs from the skin to phagocytes to killer T cells and many others specifically designed to kill invaders of many types. It’s orders of magnitude better than anything man has ever made.

A few links on the phenomenal immune system that God made are these:
General public level. Human Immune System – How it works! (Animation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZTf3OXJDWA
Immune System, Part 1: Crash Course Anatomy & Physiology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIJK3dwCWCw

Science level: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000821.htm, https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/immune-disorders/biology-of-the-immune-system/overview-of-the-immune-system

Many universities are saying that the best way to make the immune system stronger is found in following God’s principles.

HARVARD-How to boost your immune system
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-to-boost-your-immune-system

A couple highlights are:

“…Your immune system does a remarkable job of defending you against disease-causing microorganisms….There is still much that researchers don’t know about the intricacies and interconnectedness of the immune response…[But]
Your first line of defense is to choose a healthy lifestyle. Following general good-health guidelines is the single best step you can take toward naturally keeping your immune system strong and healthy. Every part of your body, including your immune system, functions better when protected from environmental assaults and bolstered by healthy-living strategies such as these:

–Don’t smoke.
–Eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables.
–Exercise regularly.
–Maintain a healthy weight.
–If you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation.
–Get adequate sleep.
–Take steps to avoid infection, such as washing your hands frequently and cooking meats thoroughly.
–Try to minimize stress.

…Like any fighting force, the immune system army marches on its stomach. Healthy immune system warriors need good, regular nourishment.”
See also: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/six-ways-you-can-help-your-immune-system

6 Signs You Have a Weakened Immune System (& 8 ways to boost your immune system at the end)
https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/health-and-wellness/2020/march/weakened-immune-system

Stanford dietitians talk about how we can strengthen the immune system through diet (it relates to cancer, but much applies to all diseases and protecting the body against viruses too).
Nutritional Considerations to Help Support the Immune System: During and Beyond Cancer Treatment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIcdNxxgkyk

B) PAGAN MEDICINE: From ancient times, pagan methods of medicine have used a very different philosophy. They have followed a principle of using poison to wipe out disease. The problem is that this method usually indiscriminately kills disease cells and healthy cells and severely damages health organs as well, making them vulnerable to more diseases in the future.

Dr. James Hannam, Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge, points out:
“Premodern medicine was an unmitigated disaster, far more likely to kill patients than to cure them….Treatments such as bleeding and purging could only weaken the constitution of the sick, reducing their bodies’ capacity to fight off infection.” (James Hannam is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Regnery), which was shortlisted for the Royal Society Science Book Prize.)
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/09/modern-sciencersquos-christian-sources

Unfortunately many of God’s health methods have been ignored in conventional medicine now and some follows pagan medicine. So many doctors are asking questions like this:

Are Conventional Cancer Treatments Killing Us? – Dr Bradford Weeks says we need to ask:
How will the doctors care for the patient while killing cancer with surgery. Some surgeons have said “The surgery was successful..but the patient died.” That’s not a success for the patient at all. The symptom are telling you there is a problem in the body. Focus on that.
https://rumble.com/vkxjk4-are-conventional-cancer-treatments-killing-us-dr-bradford-weeks.html

1) CANCER CAUSES DEATH:
Many doctors warn about the danger of using chemotherapy and some studies (a few listed below) show the survival rate of using chemotherapy to beat some cancers is as low as 2% within 5 years of that treatment. Not only that, chemotherapy itself is the main cause of death in many cases.
A British inquiry into the use of chemotherapy to treat seriously ill cancer patients has found the treatment caused or hastened death in 27% of cases. Chemotherapy causes death in more than 25% of cancer patients https://www.pharmatimes.com/news/chemotherapy_causes_death_in_more_than_25_of_cancer_patients_986391

2) CANCER DOESN’T AFFECT STEM CELLS
Quite a few doctors at Yale and other places have found that most cancers have stem cells…cells that are the main producers of cancer in the body, are responsible for cancer returning stronger after treatment and that they usually aren’t affected by chemotherapy.

Killing Cancer’s Seeds
https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/killing-cancers-seeds/

Hope crushed can be a terrible thing. Oncologist Alessandro D. Santin, M.D., sees that despair all too often. Santin, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, typically treats ovarian cancer patients when their tumors have grown dangerously large and spread to other parts of their bodies. Most of these women undergo surgery first, then chemotherapy. After they have endured these complicated and painful treatments, though, often the most he can offer is a small measure of good news.

Nearly four out of five patients have no detectable disease left in their body; however, cancer will return in nearly 90 percent of the apparently “cured” women—the second time with a vengeance—and chemotherapy will no longer work. “There is very little we can do for them at that time,” Santin says.

Sitting in his School of Medicine office almost swallowed by the stacks of papers and journals that surround him, Santin speaks of the deceptively malevolent power of ovarian cancer cells to re-erupt after treatment. He has been studying the source of that power and thinks emerging insights reveal new possibilities for stopping it from killing women. “I’m targeting the cells that are resistant to treatment and therefore responsible for the cancer’s recurrence and the death of my patients,” he says. He has come to believe a very specific type of killer lies deep within tumors: cells that are not ordinary tumor cells.

“We are trying to identify a subset of cells that looks different, acts different, and reacts differently among cancer cells. These are the cells you try to kill with anything,” but cannot, at least so far.

Santin’s research is among the most advanced efforts to translate the complicated biology of what some observers term “cancer stem cells” into novel treatments for one of the most aggressive and lethal forms of cancer. According to a controversial theory that is gaining wider acceptance among oncologists and cancer researchers, certain cells have a unique set of developmental differentiation and self-renewal powers—akin to stem cells that form tissues during embryonic development—needed to initiate tumors. According to this theory, tumors need these “cancer seeds” in order to spread through the body….

The presence of such stem cells may explain a cancer’s ability to survive treatment. “A lot of drugs can kill regular cancer cells but not cancer stem cells,” says Lin. “They can evade every insult we throw at them.” Cancer stem cells, he believes, possess DNA repair mechanisms that allow them to resist chemotherapy. They also divide much more slowly than most cancer cells, making them less vulnerable to chemotherapeutic agents that attack fast-dividing cells. (Speed of division underlies the death of hair, nail, and certain blood cells during chemotherapy as well as the development of unbearably itchy skin and other chemotherapy-related side effects.) Moreover, studies indicate that when tumor cells die during treatment, they release signaling proteins that may stimulate surviving stem cells to reproduce and differentiate into a new tumor. In effect, treatment may actually increase the proportion of the highly aggressive and resistant cancer stem cells within tumors, perhaps explaining why fast-growing deadly malignancies often follow therapy.

What matters then is not just how many tumor cells a cancer therapy eliminates, but also its capacity to kill the cancer at its source.

Neurosurgeon Dr. Blaylock, in the documentary Truth about Cancer, also says that some doctors will say that there are good responses from chemotherapy (meaning tumor shrinkage), but chemotherapy doesn’t kill cancer origin…the stem cells. This can also build up resistance to other treatments and make cancer stem cell stronger, often producing secondary cancers and the cancer can return more aggressive and stronger. The response rates are just measuring whether a tumor shrunk or a person is still alive after 6 months to a year later, not measuring long term living and thriving, which should be the measure.
“The Truth about Cancer: A Global Quest”
THE TRUE HISTORY OF CHEMOTHERAPY & THE PHARMACEUTICAL MONOPOLY
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9sGWHwytFpfl/

“John Dick and colleagues at the University of Toronto confirmed in 1997 that certain types of leukemia originated from a subpopulation of stem cells. In 2003, Michael Clarke of the University of Michigan and now at Stanford, found cancer stem cells in breast tumors and demonstrated that most other cells in the tumor were incapable of seeding growth on their own. Others followed with similar discoveries in brain cancer, colon cancer, bone cancer and melanoma…If tumors originate from just a few errant stem cells, it might explain why many treatments that reduce tumor mass fail to cure patients of cancer. Generally, these treatments target fast growing cells, which might leave the slow cycling stem cells untouched. Because they may be relatively protected from current treatment strategies, cancer stem cells are thought to be responsible for resistance to chemotherapy and the recurrence of disease.”

Chemotherapy curable malignancies and cancer stem cells: a biological review and hypothesis
https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-016-2956-z

“Cancer has the ability to become resistant to many different types of drugs. Increased efflux of drug, enhanced repair/increased tolerance to DNA damage, high antiapoptotic potential, decreased permeability and enzymatic deactivation allow cancer cell survive the chemotherapy. Treatment can lead to the death of most tumor cells (drug-sensitive), but some of them (drug-resistant) survive and grow again. These tumor cells may arise from stem cells. There are many studies describing human experiments with multidrug resistance, especially in breast cancer.”
Why chemotherapy can fail?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20731201/

Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. was an alternative cancer treatment specialist and outspoken critic of the conventional cancer industry. Dr. Gonzalez has a serious (scientifically valid) health warning about chemotherapy for every cancer patient.
Stem cells are useful in the body, to replace worn out cells, etc.. But when cancer takes over, it can use the stem cells to produce cancer cells. Chemotherapy chemicals don’t do much to damage these stem cells. They just damage many healthy parts of the body and make it far more vulnerable to cancer in other places.

Why Chemotherapy fails… Chemotherapy Fails Often – Let’s Take A Look At Why with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. He talks about how chemotherapy almost never affects the cancer stem cells which produce the cancer and other reasons why chemotherapy doesn’t work in most cases.
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/videos/why-chemotherapy-fails/

The Truth About Chemotherapy (with Nicholas Gonzalez, MD) (esp. ~5:00-11:00, ~20:00-37:00)
https://youtu.be/24YkS4bwHvs

3) CHEMOTHERAPY ALMOST NEVER CURES CANCER
Hundreds if not thousands of medical doctors and scientists have been trained in conventional chemotherapy methods, but after long experience, found that it hardly ever works and often does a lot more harm than good. Many published studies state that chemotherapy isn’t very effective in most cases and cancer often relapses.

The US government’s own cancer research institition center admitted in January 15, 2016:
“Chemotherapy can keep the disease in check for years without symptoms or need for further treatment, but virtually all patients relapse. Ultimately, for most patients, there is no curative therapy.”
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2016/cll-new-drugs

In 1997, one researcher famously commented in the New England Journal of Medicine that 50 years of “effort focused largely on improving [cancer] treatment must be judged a qualified failure,”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950195/

“nearly all current treatments face the same problem: for many patients, they ultimately stop working…When cancer cells resist the effects of drugs used for treatment, they can grow and reform tumors, a process known as recurrence or relapse…Because cancer cells within the same tumor often have a variety of molecular changes, this so-called intrinsic resistance is common….Molecular alterations that contribute to intrinsic or acquired treatment resistance include mutation of the drug’s molecular target, changes in the way the drug interacts with the tumor, broad cellular changes, and changes in the tumor microenvironment, among others. To complicate matters, many of these factors can be at play simultaneously in a single tumor.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/research/drug-combo-resistance

Here are a couple good examples that show that even granting many assumptions, chemotherapy is beneficial in a max of 2.3% of cases and mostly does harm.

How Effective Is Chemo Therapy? August 16, 2018 / Dr. Gerald H. Smith /
https://icnr.com/articles/is-chemotherapy-effective/

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies Graeme Morgan 1, Robyn Ward, Michael Barton
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630849/

An important paper has been published [by 3 leading oncologists] in the Australian journal Clinical Oncology. This meta-analysis, entitled “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies” set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer…

the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA. They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures “should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness” (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).

All three of the paper’s authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New South Wales/St. Vincent’s Hospital. The third author, Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) — roughly the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration.
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004.

Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy. Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients.

Yet despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy’s lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.

“Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy will significantly improve cancer survival,” the authors wrote in their introduction. “However, despite the use of new and expensive single and combination drugs to improve response rates…there has been little impact from the use of newer regimens” (Morgan 2005).
The Australian authors continued: “…in lung cancer, the median survival has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.] and an overall survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers.”

The authors point out that the similarity of the figures for Australia and the US make it very likely that the recorded benefit of 2.5 percent or less would be mirrored in other developed countries also.
Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA. They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures “should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness” (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate). Understanding Relative Risk
How is it possible that patients are routinely offered chemotherapy when the benefits to be gained by such an approach are generally so small? In their discussion, the authors address this crucial question and cite the tendency on the part of the medical profession to present the benefits of chemotherapy in statistical terms that, while technically accurate, are seldom clearly understood by patients.

For example, oncologists frequently express the benefits of chemotherapy in terms of what is called “relative risk” rather than giving a straight assessment of the likely impact on overall survival. Relative risk is a statistical means of expressing the benefit of receiving a medical intervention in a way that, while technically accurate, has the effect of making the intervention look considerably more beneficial than it truly is. If receiving a treatment causes a patient’s risk to drop from 4 percent to 2 percent, this can be expressed as a decrease in relative risk of 50 percent. On face value that sounds good. But another, equally valid way of expressing this is to say that it offers a 2 percent reduction in absolute risk, which is less likely to convince patients to take the treatment.

It is not only patients who are misled by the overuse of relative risk in reporting the results of medical interventions. Several studies have shown that physicians are also frequently beguiled by this kind of statistical sleight of hand. According to one such study, published in the British Medical Journal, physicians’ views of the effectiveness of drugs, and their decision to prescribe such drugs, was significantly influenced by the way in which clinical trials of these drugs were reported. When results were expressed as a relative risk reduction, physicians believed the drugs were more effective and were strongly more inclined to prescribe than they were when the identical results were expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Bucher 1994).
Another study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, demonstrated that the way in which survival benefits are presented specifically influenced the decision of medical professionals to recommend chemotherapy. Since 80 percent of patients chose what their oncologist recommends, the way in which the oncologist perceives and conveys the benefits of treatment is of vital importance. This study showed that when physicians are given relative risk reduction figures for a chemotherapy regimen, they are more likely to recommend it to their patients than when they are given the mathematically identical information expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Chao 2003).

The way that medical information is reported in the professional literature therefore clearly has an important influence on the treatment recommendations oncologists make. A drug that can be said, for example, to reduce cancer recurrence by 50 percent, is likely to get the attention and respect of oncologists and patients alike, even though the absolute risk may only be a small one – perhaps only 2 or 3 percent – and the reduction in absolute risk commensurately small.

To their credit, the Australian authors of the study on the effectiveness of chemotherapy address the issue of relative versus absolute risk. They suggest that the apparent gulf between the public perception of chemotherapy’s effectiveness and its actual mediocre track record can largely be attributed to the tendency of both the media and the medical profession to express efficacy in terms of relative rather than absolute risk.

“The minimal impact on survival in the more common cancers conflicts with the perceptions of many patients who feel they are receiving a treatment that will significantly enhance their chances of cure,” the authors wrote. “In part this represents the presentation of data as a reduction in risk rather than as an absolute survival benefit and by exaggerating the response rates by including ‘stable disease.’”

As an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, they cite the treatment of breast cancer. In 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent) actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated additional one percent — but this is achieved at the expense of an increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.
“There is also no convincing evidence,” they write, “that using regimens with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens used in the 1970s.” They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Bob Wright, founder of the American Anti-Cancer Institute, interviewed the authors of the 2004 study recently and asked them if that is still true now. They said yes, and it may be getting worse.
(https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/does-chemo-radiation-actually-make-cancer-more-malignant).

Radiation/chemotherapy increase malignancy of cancer. This is at least partly because as research has found because chemotherapy/radiation don’t affect the cancer stem cells that are the main cause of cancer. They shrink tumors temporarily, but then they often come back more aggressive later since the stem cells weren’t affected.

4) Chemotherapy doesn’t change the habits that cause cancer and/or distracts from the root causes of the cancer (and many doctors are not trained in these).
Many doctors have said that much of conventional medicine is about treating symptoms, not the root causes of cancer and other diseases which are mostly related to daily lifestyle habits of diet, avoiding harmful habits like smoking, drugs, alcohol, exercise, use of too many toxins in their environment, mental conditions, etc. Many have said they received almost no training in the role of nutrition and other health habits strengthening the immune system.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Joel Fuhrman are just 2 of many doctors who are speaking out about this problem.

Why is the Science of Nutrition Ignored in Medicine? | T. Colin Campbell | TEDxCornellUniversity
https://youtu.be/tmWoWOM16uE

Dr. Campbell basically says that nutrition when done right, can make people healthier than all the pills and procedures combined. He says just 2 principles can do a lot to move you towards optimum health:
A) Eat whole plant foods (avoid most pills and supplements since the nutrients are in fragments or are separated from their natural balance with other nutrients and don’t work well or even cause harm).
B) We don’t need meat. We don’t need protein from animal sources. Plants provide all the protein we need (~8-10% of total calories).

This combination works to bring optimal health. Unfortunately, there isn’t a medical school in the United States that properly teaches genuine nutrition, and most don’t teach it at all, despite there being about 130 medical specialties. Worse, it’s very hard to get paid for their services in the area of nutrition (because of government policies and the confusion of the general public). Why is nutrition not taken seriously by most of medicine? It’s mostly because of corporate interference and funding and corruption.

But diets done right, can prevent future problems and heal current problems.

Another doctor, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, talks similarly in “I Love Nutritional Science”
https://youtu.be/E4katnfHzXA

He says to imagine smashing your hand with a hammer and going to a doctor and he only gives you medicine to stop the pain, but you keep on smashing your hand with the hammer. This is what much of modern medicine is like. Most of the diseases people have now are because of their toxic lifestyles. The standard American Diet is only 5% natural foods, 55% processed food. The whiter the bread, the sooner you are dead. It’s almost like Al Queda designed it. The Immune system’s special forces are:
GBOMB–Greens, Beans, Onions, Mushrooms, Berries, Seeds.

If most people followed wise health habits, most cardiologists could find other jobs.

5) Studies have shown that most of the public and even doctors misunderstand the effectiveness of chemotherapy because of manipulated statistics.
How Effective Is Chemo Therapy? August 16, 2018 / Dr. Gerald H. Smith
https://icnr.com/articles/is-chemotherapy-effective
How is it possible that patients are routinely offered chemotherapy when the benefits to be gained by such an approach are generally so small? In their discussion, the authors address this crucial question and cite the tendency on the part of the medical profession to present the benefits of chemotherapy in statistical terms that, while technically accurate, are seldom clearly understood by patients.

Another study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, demonstrated that the way in which survival benefits are presented specifically influenced the decision of medical professionals to recommend chemotherapy. Since 80 percent of patients chose what their oncologist recommends, the way in which the oncologist perceives and conveys the benefits of treatment is of vital importance. This study showed that when physicians are given relative risk reduction figures for a chemotherapy regimen, they are more likely to recommend it to their patients than when they are given the mathematically identical information expressed as an absolute risk reduction (Chao 2003).

“There is also no convincing evidence,” they write, “that using regimens with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens used in the 1970s.” They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials to use what are called ‘surrogate end points,’ as a yardstick by which to measure a chemotherapy regimen’s effectiveness. This is instead of using the only real measures that matters to patients — prolongation of life as measured by overall survival and improved quality of life. Surrogate end points such as ‘progression-free survival,’ ‘disease-free survival’ or ‘recurrence-free survival’ may only reflect temporary lulls in the progression of the disease. Such temporary stabilization of disease, if it occurs at all, seldom lasts for more than a few months at best. The cancer typically returns, sometimes with renewed vigor, and survival is not generally extended by such interventions. However, trials reported in terms of surrogate end points can create the illusion that the lives of desperately ill patients are being significantly extended or made more bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the case.

In summary, the authors state:

“The introduction of cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors and the establishment of the sub-specialty of medical oncology have been accepted as an advance in cancer management. However, despite the early claims of chemotherapy as the panacea for curing all cancers, the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy is limited to small subgroups of patients and mostly occurs in the less common malignancies.” Splitting Hairs

6) The BMJ reports that ~60-90% of the funding for the CDC/NIH in most developed countries comes from corporations that sell the drugs these agencies are supposed to be regulating, a severe case of corruption that endangers health.

Are drug regulators sufficiently independent from the companies they regulate? https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/investigation-are-drug-regulators-sufficiently-independent-from-the-companies-they-are-meant-to-regulate/

Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of new medicines before they hit the market. But an investigation published by The BMJ today finds that industry money permeates the globe’s leading regulators, raising questions about their independence, especially in the wake of a string of drug and device scandals.

Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate, explains investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi. Industry fees to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased 30 fold – from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016, while in Europe, industry fees now fund 89% of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), up from 20% in 1995….Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96%) and in 2020-2021 approved more than nine of every 10 drug company applications….

Sociologist Donald W Light of Rowan University in New Jersey, US, who has spent decades studying drug regulation, says, “Like the FDA, the TGA was founded to be an independent institute. However, being largely funded by fees from the companies whose products it is charged to evaluate is a fundamental conflict of interest and a prime example of institutional corruption.”

Concern over COIs is not just directed at those who work for the regulators but extends to the advisory panels intended to provide regulators with independent expert advice, notes Demasi….

Donald Light argues that regulators now need their own watchdog and is calling for a drug and vaccine safety board, independent of the drug regulator, with the authority, staffing, and funds to investigate incidents of patient harm. “Countries have independent safety boards for airlines and their passengers. Why not for drugs and patients too?” he says.

The BMJ study is here:
From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538

7) Doctors don’t receive training in Biblical natural health treatment methods.
Many doctors have testified that they and most doctors receive almost no training in natural and biblical methods of treating disease. Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Joel Fuhrman are just 2 of many doctors who are speaking out about this problem.

Why is the Science of Nutrition Ignored in Medicine? | T. Colin Campbell | TEDxCornellUniversity
https://youtu.be/tmWoWOM16uE

Another doctor, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, talks similarly in “I Love Nutritional Science”
https://youtu.be/E4katnfHzXA

See doctors in many documentaries like “The Truth about Cancer” that say the same thing.

8) Statistics for chemotherapy success are manipulated and most studies cover 5 years or less.
If you look at cancer survival reports using chemotherapy, you will see some very positive numbers in some cases. But there are 2 problems with this:
a) They are often based on statistics that have been manipulated (as explained in point #5 above).
b) The vast majority of scientific studies on the effectiveness of chemotherapy cover a period of 1-5 years. Unfortunately, cancer often comes back with a vengeance after that 5 year period.

A group of doctors from Chinese universities and Johns Hopkins have reported that most studies on cancer are done over a 5 year period, but that this has almost no effect on whether the patient lives or dies. If I had cancer, I would sure want to live a whole lot longer than 5 years.

Five-Year Survival is Not a Useful Measure for Cancer Control in the Population: an Analysis Based on UK Data https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454760/

Five-year survival is an important metric for progress in cancer control broadly used both in the cancer literature and by the public….From 1976 to 1995, there was no significant correlation between changes in 5-year survival and cancer mortality for either sex…5-yearsurvival may not provide evidence for progress against cancer, or even for improvements in clinical management…Our findings suggest that there are no reliable relationships between changes in 5-year survival and cancer incidence or mortality. An increase in 5-year survival does not correspond to a significant reduction in mortality.

9) Natural methods can have cure rates of up to 93%.
Because natural methods can’t be patented or make high profits, it’s hard to find support for doing very expensive scientific trials and many doctors using these methods are too busy helping people who are facing death to have time for experiments. So significant and the most extensive and rigorous trials are not done often. But there are are over 25,000 research articles on pubmed that show that various herbs can kill cancer AND cancer stem cells in vitro, some very impressively, and some do it in vivo, and some also show this with human patients.

Here is one example of a peer reviewed paper by a natural clinic with very impressive results.
NATURE WORKS BEST: This medical institute is the one that has the highest rate of treating cancer documented in peer reviewed research to my knowledge, even the most difficult kinds. They have demonstrated a 93% rate of curing or controlling even the worst cancers, if people follow their protocol.
https://natureworksbest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017-Cancer-treatment-paper.2017.12.30.pdf

The Optimal Diet for Cancer Patients
https://natureworksbest.com/cancer-biochemistry/
https://colleenhuber.com/nutrients-kill-cancer-study/
https://natureworksbest.com/optimal-diet-cancer-patients/

Dr. Colleen Huber runs Nature Works Best and gave the keynote talk at a recent world breast cancer conference. She has a short overview of her methods in comparison to chemotherapy, with a bit of animation and testimonies as well:
Cancer Can Be Killed Documentary ft. Colleen Huber, NMD
https://natureworksbest.com/natural-alternative-cancer-treatments/, https://natureworksbest.com/cancer-can-killed-documentary/

10) Natural methods have worked in many cases when conventional medicine failed.
“The Truth about Cancer” series has over 100 doctors talking about how they changed their views after seeing that conventional treatments mostly failed and trying natural methods and finding them more effective.

Just a couple examples are these:
A) Frankincense Used to Treat Brain Tumor: This tells the story of a young girl Allison Huish who changed to follow natural healthy methods of living and Frankincense oil to beat brain cancer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjC_GQ_uHQ

Mrs. Axe Tells Her Story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PA4TMB9z4w

Dr. Josh Axe channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgtp61tf9tYF7nG_gIQ94LQ

He has many articles about natural principles that help fight cancer. A couple examples are:
12 Natural Cancer Treatments Revealed
https://draxe.com/health/10-natural-cancer-treatments-hidden-cures/

Top 14 Herbs of the Bible that Heal & Nourish
https://draxe.com/nutrition/the-top-14-herbs-of-the-bible/

CONCLUSION
We should trust God’s principles and methods of healing disease because they always work best. But even if people aren’t Christians, if they want to live, it’s a no brainer. The chemotherapy methods have at best a tiny benefit with a lot of harm, and God’s methods have up to a 93% cure rate. That’s phenomenal. But it’s just another demonstration that God’s wisdom is far better than man’s wisdom. As the Bible says:

“God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. 1 Cor. 1:27-28

I hope this information is helpful to you and that you can use it to make better choices and advise others to make better choices to preserve the wonderful life God gave us and use it for His glory!

Sincerely,
Bryan Bissell