Home Page

The use of unconventional methods may result in the loss of valuable time and the opportunity to receive potentially effective therapy and consequently reduce a patient's chances for cure or control of cancer. (Unconventional Methods: A National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet, October 1992)

Few people realize how poor the track record of conventional treatment has been. Many people assume that because the FDA approves treatments and qualified medical professionals conduct them it is safe to put trust in them.

Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician. During the 1980’s he undertook a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject.

He published his report in the Lancet magazine in August 1991 and in his book, Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer (Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990). By "epithelial" Abel means the most common forms of adenocarcinoma-- lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. These account for at least 80 percent of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.

He concluded that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy is 'appalling' because there is simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can 'extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers'.

Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as 'a scientific wasteland' and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the 'emperor's new clothes'--neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works!

Dr Abel also published details of survival rates for cancer patients treated with chemotherapy as follows:

* Bladder - No statistics available
* Breast - No evidence of an increase in life expectancy
* Cervical/Uterine - No evidence of an increase in life expectancy
* Colorectal - No increase in life expectancy
* Gastric cancer - No evidence of improvement
* Head & neck - No improvement in life expectancy (tumours may shrink)
* Ovarian - No evidence of an increase in life expectancy
* Pancreatic - More negative than patients who were not treated

"Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds. "Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before, since the chemotherapy fosters the growth of resistant cell lines." Besides, the chemotherapy has severely damaged the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver.

The term ‘response’ has been used by cancer specialists to persuade patients of the benefits of chemotherapy, omitting to mention that a response rarely translates into a significant improvement in survival time or quality of life for the patient. Indeed, studies cited by Abel have shown that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.

The response by the chemotherapy industry in the United States to Abel’s report can best be described as silence. In other words the response has been to make no response.

Along similar lines, three Australian oncologists undertook a literature search for randomized clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998.

The results of the survey was that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

They concluded that as the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required. (The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies Graeme Morgan, Robyn Wardy, Michael Bartonz, Clinical Oncology (2004) 16: 549 to560)

The issue received virtually no coverage in the U.S. Supporters of the status quo briefly and passionately debated the article. In Australia one supporter of the status quo strongly argued on television that the real contribution of chemotherapy to survival rates was more like 6%.

Guy B Faguet is a retired professor of oncology who has published numerous articles and worked in this area for all his professional life. His book, “The War On Cancer, Anatomy of Failure, A Blueprint for the Future" was published in 2005.

He reviews the three main treatment models of chemotherapy, surgery and radiation and presents the outcome after three decades in a chapter entitled “Treatment outcomes: Dismal by any standard.”

One of his central points is that for decades mainstream medicine has been following the notion that cancer is inherently different from the host and must be eradicated at any cost. He demonstrates that tumor reduction does not directly correlate to the survival rate.

In any case this cell killing (cytotoxic) approach is inappropriate given recent developments in our understanding of the genetic mutation factors involved in the proliferation of cancer. Simply put, cancer is the result of a normal process gone wrong rather than an invasion by a foreign element.

He notes the irony that the ‘War On Cancer’ is being conducted in the U.S. by a centralized bureaucracy (the NCI) which has the effect of stifling innovation and discovery in a country that prides itself on the free flow of ideas.

He advocates prevention, early diagnosis and research being switched from the ‘cell-kill’ approach to one more suited to our new understanding of cancer.

These three sources are presented as a cross section of those questioning the success of conventional treatment.

Many people try to convey the impression that cancer patients should shun alternative treatments that are risky and unproven and turn to conventional treatments that are secure and successful. The sample of opinions given here shows that impression to be a false one.