The War On Cancer - Who Is Winning?

Over the past 80 years, the war on cancer was fought with 3 tools: surgery (cut), radiation therapy (burn), and chemotherapy (poison). Over the same period, there had been rapid improvements in technology and medical science. As such, one would expect medical treatments and success rates for cancer to rise steadily. But has it? The answer is an emphatic "no".

Unfortunately, the overall cancer incidence has increased by 44% since 1950, with breast cancer and male colon cancer increasing by 60% and prostate cancer increasing by 100%. Furthermore, 44% of Americans are expected to develop cancer in the near future.

For many decades, the 5-year survival term has remained constant for non-localized breast cancer at 18% and lung cancer at 13%. Overall, the average cancer patient today has a 50% chance of living another 5 years, which is exactly the same odds he or she had way back in 1971.

The war on cancer seems to be a dismal failure considering the 45 billion dollars spent over the past few decades on cancer research. While the National Cancer Institute (NCI) claims that the 5 year survival rates (definition of a cure) have increased from 20% from the year 1930 to 53% in adults and 70% in children today, critics of the NCI claim that this increase has more to do with earlier diagnosis alone and not the therapeutic modalities used.

Between the years of 1973 to 1987, melanoma increased by 83%, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by 51% and lung cancer by 32%. The 30-year trend (1960-62 to 1990-92) for death resulting from lung cancer is 85% higher for men and 438% higher for women, 29% higher for prostate cancer, 4% higher for breast cancer, and 12% higher for female pancreatic cancer. However, over this same period, the rate of death has dropped for cancer of the colon and rectum by 9%, male leukemia by 9%, and ovarian cancer by 8%. Overall, the cancer death rate, after adjusting changes in the size and composition of the population with respect to age has increased by 7% between the years of 1975 and 1990.

Spokesman for conventional therapies often boost the 5-year survival rate as an indication of progress and money well spent. Let us take a closer look.

Between the years 1974 to 1976 and 1981 to 1987, the 5-year-survival rates only increased by 2%, from 49% to 51% on an overall basis. The 5-year survival rates for cancer of the liver, lung, pancreas, bone and breast has remained the same as they were in 1965. Due to advanced diagnostic modalities, survival time seems longer than in the past probably because of earlier diagnosis and not successful treatments. For example, a woman whose breast cancer is diagnosed 3 years earlier because of mammography may live for another 7 years after diagnosis. In 1985, using older diagnostic and treatment tools, this same women would have appeared to live only 4 years. We have improved on screening tools, but the majority of advances are not in curing tools.

Let us look at some additional hard statistics on common cancers.

The 5-year survival rate (all stages) using conventional treatment for bladder cancer is 80.7%, 83.2% for breast cancer, 61% for colorectal cancer, 57% for kidney cancer, 68% for leukemia, 13% for lung cancer, 86% for melanoma, 51% for non-hodgkin's lymphoma, 44% for ovarian cancer, 3.6% for pancreatic cancer, 85% for prostate cancer, and 68% for uterine cancer. Based on these statistics, you may feel pretty good. This is assuming that after 5 years, your chances of survival is the same based on a straight line curve going up.

Looking at things from a long-term aspect, the numbers become scarier. For example, the extended survival rate (beyond 5 years) for breast cancer is less then 50%. For prostate cancer, the future is not much better, with a 5-year-survival rate of about 70%, and 10-year survival rate of around 35%.

The question to ask is - Did cancer ever exist on earth before the advent of modern medicine? Of course! Then, how did people treat cancer over the past 5,000 years? Did they simply die? No, of course not. Through the centuries, natural therapies have been available and were used by emperors and kings alike to combat cancer. Unfortunately, their use has been suppressed the past century and been labeled as "quackery" by today's modern medicine.

There is no better example of the weakness of conventional medicine on its clear failure in overcoming cancer. By the same token, there is no better example of the superiority of natural medicine in the management of cancer. Optimum results are often obtained when combining conventional therapies with natural, non-toxic modalities.