New research has found that some therapies could stop melanoma from spreading or returning. Well, that’s what they hope. But is that hope based on anything?
“One Australian dies every five hours from advanced melanoma,” That’s about 1500 a year. And the number is probably increasing, just like with all cancers. And melanoma therapies have not been particularly effective, just like with all cancer therapies. “Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) said the findings could change the way the cancer is treated in the future.” Could, but not will. But I suppose that’s because they are still trials. The problem is that all those medical trials rarely lead to anything useful and therefore there is no news value in publishing this kind of stuff. But I suppose that without publishing “promising research” the medical journals couldn’t exist anymore.
“block the BRAF gene — which causes melanoma to spread.” Ah, another genetic cancer, which was rare or non-existent 100 years ago. It’s amazing how quickly all these genetic diseases have spread. I have no idea how researchers find genes that they can blame for diseases, but it cannot possibly be based in science. Generally it’s a matter of “so many people with this gene have the disease”, so the gene must be the cause. But many people with the disease don’t have the gene and many people with the gene don’t get the disease. Which makes the correlation very weak at best. And BTW, a gene is nothing more than a complex molecule. I’m not sure how you can block a molecule.
“found the therapy prevented Stage III melanoma from recurring, and helped improve patients’ overall survival rate.” How long have these studies been going? To improve survival rates you would need to keep going for at least five years and to be sure that the cancer indeed doesn’t come back you would need to have at least 20 years. I don’t think that has happened. Cancer statistics are usually highly manipulated to make them look better than they are. If the patients that got the therapy developed another cancer and died from it, then the melanoma didn’t recur. But that didn’t really help the patient. Oncology is chockful of smokescreens and most cancer patients don’t know it.
“said the drugs reduced the rate at which the disease would return by 53 per cent.” Professor Scolyer, how do you know that? And how exactly did you measure this? “basically stop melanoma in its tracks,” Does it really? Or does it so in theory? And what does this mean for the life expectancy of the patients? For the latter is what matters, not all the theories about one disease. It’s remarkably that oncologists never talk about life expectancy, which is the only thing that is important. If you don’t get melanoma back, but you die from another cancer, or a heart attack, then this is hardly helpful. “also reduced the rate the disease would return by about 35 per cent. ” Same here. Why doesn’t it return? Is the patient healthier? That’s not very likely, considering the high toxicity of cancer treatments.
“worked to help boost the body’s own immune system to fight the cancer.” These are the most bizarre types of cancer treatment. Boosting the immune system should be done with good food, fresh air, sunshine, low stress, happiness and such things. The idea that you can improve the immune system with toxic drugs is weird, not to say laughable.
“But he said it was too soon to tell if those drugs improved overall survival rates.” Huh? Professor Scolyer, you have me confused now. The new drug stops melanoma and prevents it from recurring, but you don’t know if it actually works? What are you talking about? “They only work locally, but don’t prevent the disease if it’s already spread elsewhere,” So you say that you don’t know why people get melanoma and why they get cancer somewhere else, or what that means. You actually say that you don’t know much at all. I already got that impression. “there must be little seeded deposits of little cells that we can’t detect now ” This sounds a bit desperate, like you really don’t know what you are doing and make a wild guess. If the therapy would remove those deposits, then the patients should survive longer. But you just say that you don’t know about that.
Then we still get a story of a cancer patient who was part of the trial and has a really positive story. But at a closer look the story isn’t that positive at all, but full of mights and maybes. And how the other people in the trial do is unclear. Probably not so good, for else it would have been mentioned.
The reality is that in the war on cancer no battles have been won. A few have been undetermined, but most battles have been lost. And a lot of number manipulation, vague terminology and other smokescreens are necessary to hide this. The only ones that benefit from cancer treatments are the pharmaceutical businesses that make the drugs. Cancer drugs are the most profitable category and the manufacturers would like to keep the many billions of dollars coming.
It is a scientifically proven fact that in most cases not doing anything gives a much better life expectancy than getting conventional treatments. And it is also a scientifically proven fact that natural therapies cure cancer and they usually do that fast, cheap and without any dangerous side-effects. But there is not a lot of money in them and so patients aren’t told this life-saving information.