Cancer screening

It’s not so hard to find out that cancer screening programs do nothing to reduce the number of people dying from cancer. But that doesn’t stop scientists from inventing new tests. So now scientists want to start to test women for ovarian cancer and that is supposed to reduce the number of women dying from this disease with 20%.

The problem with the cancer industry (yes, it’s a very profitable industry) is that they always manipulate numbers to hide the fact that they are doing so little to cure cancer patients. Conventional cancer treatments have a dismal cure rate of 2%, and that’s probably optimistic. And if people recover after those horrible treatments it’s a big question if that was because or in spite of the treatment. But facts have never bothered cancer researchers. 5879052-3x2-340x227

The reason why cancer screening programs seem to be succesful is that success rates are measured by “five year survival”. Guess what? If you detect cancer two years earlier it’s much easier to survive five years. For this doesn’t mean anything more than that you are still alive (not necessarily cancer free) five years after the diagnosis. It’s a neat trick, isn’t it? Reality is that patients don’t get cured any more with early detection. Many will just die earlier from the horrible treatments. So screening programs will just make people die earlier, not make them live longer. But it’s not so hard to come up with numbers that sound good.

“about 60 per cent of patients die within five years.” That always makes me wonder how many of these people would “survive” their cancer if they wouldn’t get any treatment. Probably a lot more, but it’s impossible to say. “the researchers calculated a “mortality reduction” ranging from 15-28 per cent depending on the number of years of screening.” I would really like to know how they calculated that. What did they measure, how did they measure it and how did they calculate the numbers? Cancer reasearchers are particularly good in manipulating numbers, so I would need very solid proof that these calculations are correct.

ovarian-cancer-ribbon-magnet“The findings are of importance given the limited progress in treatment outcomes for ovarian cancer over the last 30 years,” Wait a moment. There are limited treatment options, but still early detection saves lives? There is something wrong here. If you can’t treat it very well, then screening will have very little value. Early detection is only useful if it means you can treat it better. So here we have the truth. No matter at what stage it’s detected, ovarian cancer hardly reacts to conventional treatments. So those 15-28% must be made up. Funny that they admit that and don’t even realise it.

“Screening improves the chances of diagnosing the disease,” But it also inevitable gives a high number of false positives, with all the trouble that comes with it. “Experts who were not involved in the study pointed to the cost implications of screening for this rare cancer.” Of course they only talk about the monetary cost, but what about the cost in health and emotional wellbeing? If you get a cancer diagnosis that’s a heavy burden to carry and if that’s a false positive diagnosis then all this stress wasn’t necessary. If they even operate on healthy women then the cost in health and emotions can’t even be calculated.

“So-called “false-positive” results meant that three women had surgery for every one case diagnosed,” That means that three women are severely mutilated for every case of cancer and the one who does have cancer won’t live any longer. ovarian-cancer-homeo-treatmentWhat is going on here? How can any doctor even consider this? What happened to “first do no harm”? Unfortunately oncologists don’t put the interests of their patients first. They have a variety or reasons to mutilate healthy people, but the interest of the patient is not one of them. Cannot be one of them.

The cancer industry is all about money. Results are so minimal that it’s absurd to even take conventional treatments seriously. Oncologists who still give their patients these treatments are either completely incompetent, or they have their own agenda. In both cases they shouldn’t be doctors. The best way to survive cancer is to stay way from doctors and to try a few of the hundreds of effective natural treatments that are available. They give at least a 99% chance for a cure. That’s a cure, not five years survival.


One thought on “Cancer screening

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s