When scientists label a minor discovery that might lead to a small improvement a “breakthrough” you know that this science is in a very poor state. A breakthrough would be a cure for cancer, but you will never see that happen in scientific research. So now the representatives of the hoax called cancer research have found subtypes of pancreatic cancer that might respond better to the current therapies. They think a certain group of patients will respond better with this new therapy.
That sounds good, doesn’t it? Yes, it does, but that doesn’t mean it is good. Oncologists love to use the word “respond”, because it makes the patients believe that better response means a better chance for a cure. Forget it. This is just a smoke screen. Every cancer tumour would respond really well to a very high dose of chemotherapy. The only problem is that the patient would die immediately. So they give smaller doses, hoping that the tumour will get smaller while the patient survives. But that’s all chemotherapy does. It makes the tumour smaller, while destroying the immune system that we need to eliminate cancer. So as soon as the chemo stops the tumour will do what it’s particularly good at: grow. That’s why many patients are back within 6-12 months. So if a new therapy gives a better response it only means that the tumour has decreased in size a bit more. It doesn’t say anything about how fast it will regrow and how long you will live.
Pancreatic cancer is always mentioned as “very hard to treat”, but that’s not true. This type of cancer responds badly to chemotherapy, but that’s not remotely the same. There are hundreds of natural therapies that cure cancer, all kinds of cancer. And they usually do that very fast (a few weeks is not unusual) and without any side effects. Especially if you combine treatment the chance of a cure is at least 95%. And then I mean cure, not five year survival, which is another smoke screen. Five year survival means exactly that: five years after the initial diagnosis the patient is still alive. He or she might never have been cancer free, might be in very bad health and might die from the cancer treatment a month later, but as long as you make it to five years you go into the statistics as a success story. But the patients like to hear that five year survival means five year cancer free.
If scientists would spend a bit of time to further improve natural cancer treatments, then very few people would actually die from cancer. Not only would they get cured, but nobody would die from the cancer treatment anymore. For the real truth is that not that many people die from cancer. Most die from the cancer treatment. And as long as these poor scientists make the headlines with fake breakthroughs people will keep dying from cancer treatments.