While researching the use of alternative therapies that were utilized by Suzanne Somers, we came across doctors and media outlets who desperately tried to malign her reputation. Their responses were so hasty that they accidentally revealed statistics that are not normally shared with the public.
"We're finding that about 25 to 30 percent of some cancers stop growing at some point, that can make some treatments look good that aren't doing anything. Until doctors figure out how to identify which patients have cancers that won't progress, the only option is to treat everyone."
-- Dr. Otis Brawley, American Cancer Society's Chief Medical Officer
While some people might consider 25 to 30 percent to be a relatively low percentage, this is actually much higher than the success rate for chemotherapy. The true life-long cure rate bounces between 2 and 4 percent for orthodox treatments. When compared, 30% suddenly becomes a very impressive figure with a gain of 10 times. Of course, this number speaks only for those who supposedly get no treatments at all. Alternative therapies get better life-long cure rates than 30%, but these numbers are not discussed publicly by medical officials, and rarely in private. Why aren't these figures ever given to patients who are diagnosed with cancer? Why are they instead told the lie that they will certainly die if they refuse chemotherapy and radiation when almost the opposite is true?
We have searched tirelessly for the success rates of those who decided to walk away from all treatments for several years, but we only found it when the American Cancer Society stumbled in its attempts to defend its bruised reputation from meekly Suzanne Somers. Why didn't they publicly release those numbers before? The recovery of Suzanne Somers was obviously quite embarrassing for them, because not only is she one of many who has cured herself of cancer permanently (not just 5 years of survival) but she also went public about her experiences with alternative treatments. Had she religiously followed the orthodox therapies, she would have had a 96% chance of not being alive, and her protracted death would have been truly horrific.
The quotation cited earlier makes another interesting point. Doctors really have no clue which cancers will progress, and which ones will not. Therefore, we must ask if early testing is really a good idea. With early testing, not only do the tests actually stimulate cancers through radiation, cutting, and poisoning, but doctors frequently discover anomalies that would otherwise naturally disappear if left alone. They always treat those abnormalities, and the patients almost always die from the treatments. People nowadays die from the treatments instead of the cancers, and this is shown in the establishment's own statistics. Whenever a body is exposed to chemotherapy, cancers will strike sooner or later regardless of whether they existed initially. All chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic, and they weaken all healthy cells. This is admitted in the official literature for adverse effects for all of the so-called anti-cancer medications, and massive cellular destruction is officially a part of standard treatments by design. They claim that their medicines attack the weaker cancer cells, but they actually do that by attacking all of the cells, and thereby the very immune system that is so critical for recovery.
"Call it the arrow of cancer. Like the arrow of time, it was supposed to point in one direction. Cancers grew and worsened. But as a paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted last week, data from more than two decades of screening for breast and prostate cancer call that view into question. Besides finding tumors that would be lethal if left untreated, screening appears to be finding many small tumors that would not be a problem if they were left alone, undiscovered by screening. They were destined to stop growing on their own or shrink, or even, at least in the case of some breast cancers, disappear."
-- Gina Kolata, the New York Times, October 26, 2009
The success rate of curing cancer is not going to rise much in orthodox medicine, because it is unwilling to consider any less profitable methodologies. A rise in orthodox cancer treatment success rates would indicate that their methods of calculating cure rates have changed, not the actual survival rates. It is how the science of modern medicine is cooked. Barely surviving for 5 years is currently counted as a successful cure, but patients usually die between the 5 and 10 year mark. It is called "cooking the books" in accounting circles. Most people are shocked when they learn that those who die during drug trials are censored from the records, because the departed did not "complete the study". Getting killed in an experimental drug trial actually helps a drug company's chance of getting that drug approved, because those who get the sickest are not counted.
"Success of most chemotherapies is appalling... There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer... Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland."
If the cancer industry were really concerned about scientific progress, then it would not hide its own statistics. Truth does not fear investigation. Instead, its numbers are repeatedly covered up, and the scientific community eliminates from its ranks anyone who refuses to accept the establishment's zealous dogma. It is not science. It is politics, and a very deadly form of it.
"Two to four percent of cancers respond to chemotherapy."
-- Ralph Moss, Ph.D