|
Part
II
Chemotherapy Report
-
In 1971 Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and
promised a cure by the 1977 bicentennial.
In each of the 25 years since, more Americans have died
of cancer than the year before.
The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become
apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific
American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The
War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent
epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill
University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in
the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded
that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever
to make progress against this unremitting killer.
Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical
journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional
therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the
discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If
one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of
the [medical] profession in published research, and the
almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer
charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at
all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that
conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and
surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal
results, the editorial called on researchers to
"challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along
more fruitful lines."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard
University, published a devastating 1985 critique in
Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers,
it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death
rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to
chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured
by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers --
testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia.
In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. --
chemotherapy is NOT curative.
In an article entitled "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil
Remedy?" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of
1/9/87, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while
"some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of
evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by
scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about
chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive.
Physicians can earn much more money running active
chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and
relief.. to dying patients and their families."
Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past
President of the American Chemical Society wrote that
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is
incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear
evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than
good."
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a
questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung
cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried
out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked
to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked
which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64
of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial
containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty
eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The
ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree
of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel PhD also found
in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of
many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to
communications intended for the public."
Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981
"indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was
replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic
overkill in the United States." Thomas Nealon MD,
Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine, concluded in
1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now has slipped
from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little
good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge
economic incentives
In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By
1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion.
This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a
relentless increase in cancer deaths.
Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote in 1991 that
"no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is
curable today...Many medical oncologists recommend
chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness
undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such
failure? A look at the financial interrelationships between
a large cancer center such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center and the companies that make billions selling
chemo drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of
the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of
Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest producer of
chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC
board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard
Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as
Bristol Myers' president. Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President
and CEO, is a director of Pfizer.
truittf@axiom.net"
There are more and more reports by establishment
oncologists doubting the value of chemotherapy, even to the
point of rejecting it outright. One of these, cancer
biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany,
issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial
Cancer in 1990. (See Healing Journal, No. 1-2, Vol.7 of the
Gerson Institute.) Epithelial cancers comprise the most common
forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc.
After ten years as a statistician in clinical oncology, Abel
became increasingly uneasy. "A sober and unprejudiced
analysis of the literature," he wrote, "has rarely
revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in question
in treating advanced epithelial cancer." While
chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more
than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually
- and a majority have received some form of chemotherapy
before dying. Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds
of cancer doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists
seems to be in striking contrast to communications intended
for the public." Abel cited studies that have shown
"that many oncologists would
not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer."
(The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) "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
chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines."
Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own
defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as
the liver.
In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the
results of chemotherapy in patients with various types of
cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared to
untreated patients. This table shows:
no evidence survival is improved.
Gastric cancer: no clear evidence.
Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer
survival in control (untreated) group.[emphasis
mine:rsc]
Bladder: no clinical trial done.
Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy
prolongs survival; its use is "ethically
questionable." (That is particularly newsworthy,
since all breast cancer patients, before or after surgery,
are given chemotherapy drugs.)
Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence.
Cervix and uterus: No improved survival.
Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional
shrinkage of tumors.
More recently, the Nov. 17, 1994 Wall Street Journal, in a
front page article on political pressure being exerted for
insurance companies to pay for bone marrow transplants in
advanced breast cancer, experts give a totally negative report
on this approach. The procedure, called ABMT (Autologous Bone
Marrow Transplant) involves temporarily removing some of the
patient's bone marrow, applying a potentially lethal dose of
chemotherapy, then returning the marrow to the patient's body.
The cost of this procedure is in excess of $100,000.00 .
The University of Colorado's Dr. Jones, continues the
Journal, claims that, with conventional chemotherapy, not more
than 2% of patients with spreading breast cancer get a
positive response. A non-profit independent technology
assessment agency, the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI),
says that for the average woman with the most advanced form of
breast cancer, the high dose ABMT procedure is not only
worthless, but also likely to shorten her life. This report by
the ECRI is based on an analysis of 40 studies of ABMT and
similar procedures involving a total of 1,017 patients, and 61
studies covering 4,852 patients who had conventional
chemotherapy Dr. Nelson Erlick, the project's lead analyst,
concluded that "many patients are led to believe that
this (ABMT) is a successful therapy. We found no evidence
whatsoever that it provides any benefit."
Since the Gerson Therapy is often described by orthodox
oncologists as 'quackery', we'd like our readers to consider
this: If quackery describes an expensive treatment that the
technician knows ahead of time to be ineffective (or even
harmful), what is ABMT (bone marrow transplant)? Yet Health
Plan providers are being ordered to pay for it by the Office
of Personnel Management, a federal agency.
|