Numbers that count? You know the old saying, sir - there are lies, damned lies and statistics. And nowhere has statistics been more manipulated than cancer survival rates. The numbers you posted are abysmal to begin with - indicating a death rate of 33% within a year of diagnoses and a five year survival rate of 48% for all cancers. When you take out the huge number of easily curable cancers, such as skin melanoma and breast cancer (which is itself grossly overstated due to now including precancerous conditions that previously were not counted) and the long term survival for prostate cancer which happens without any treatment to begin with, the one year death rate climbs precipitously as does the 5 year survival rate plummet.
Most of the gains reported to begin with are largely due to earlier detection, which increases survival times so that more people make it to the magic five year survival mark that mainstream medicine labels as a successful cure - never mind those may still have cancer at the five year mark. If you are riddled with cancer on your deathbed and die one day after the five year mark, you are counted as a "cure", which is a gross and negligent lie used to manipulate people into highly profitable mainstream treatments which seldom really cure anyone. To me, a cure means eliminating the cancer entirely and proceeding to live a normal lifespan without it ever returning. I suggest that the same definition should apply to mainstream medicine.
Mainstream medicine likes to trumpet 1 or 2% increases in five year survival rates. Do the math and see how many years it will take 1 or 2%, even if true, to increase survival rates from less than 50% (far less for all but the easiest of cancers) to close to 100%. When you take into account the increased number of people who are getting cancer, you will easily see that the bleak reality is that we face increased numbers of cancers and cancer deaths into the foreseeable future using the tried and failed methods of mainstream oncology.
A hundred years ago, only 1 person in hundreds was expected to come down with cancer. Now, that figure is closer to one of every two people. Similarly, the incidence of cancer has skyrocketed since the "War on Cancer" was declared. Not figures I would be proud of if I were a mainstream cancer professional.
To get a better appreciation for how cancer figures have been manipulated, I suggest you take a look at my article:
Those are MY numbers. And here are some more for you:
Besides the many people at CureZone and elsewhere who follow a natural anti-cancer protocol such as I suggest, over the past seven years hundreds of people in South Africa have used the protocol of Naturopathic PhD Marc Swanepoel, centered around an oleander based supplement and a few other key supplements and lifestyle advice, and thus far well over 90% of them are still alive. Of the relative handful who have not survived, besides a few who had only weeks left and were unable to take the supplements, every single one had prior mainstream radiation and/or chemo and they succumbed to major organ failure as a likely result. The rest are all still alive and most are either cancer free, have cancer tumors shrinking or else have their cancer stabilized. A very large percentage had been given up on by mainstream medicine.
Likewise, I host a Yahoo group which has over 1500 members now and which has been around over 5 years. It too is centered around an extract of oleander but includes much more comprehensive suggestions regarding supplementation, diet, nutrtion, lifestyle, stress management and more. A great many of the members came to the group after mainstream methods were tried and failed, and in many instances after mainstream medicine had given up on them.
In the five plus years I have had the group, I am aware of fewer than a dozen people who have joined the group and tried the protocol, or even part of it, and are not still alive today. And the ones who are not still alive all had prior mainstream surgery, chemo and/or radiation. One person tried the protocol for less than two months and then listened to his oncologist, who told him that oleander and supplements were voodoo that could not possibly work and that his best option was to let the oncologist perform a nerve block so he could live out his final few months in less pain. He proceeded to live for over a year and a half beyond the oncologist's prognosis and his daughter, who is still a member of the group, will tell you that she has no doubt that it was the oleander and protocol which gave him the extra time.
One member of the group is my own 86 year old uncle. About four years ago he was diagnosed with having a small lung cancer tumor and was assured by his oncologist that it had been caught earlier enough that it should be easy to beat with "targeted radiation pellets". Instead his tumor continued to grow and his cancer began to spread to other parts of his body. His oncologist wanted to put him on a strong chemo regimen. Instead he listened to me and, after having his brother-in-law in Houston go to MD Anderson and check out oleander and come back with glowing reports, he opted for oleander and a protocol close to what I suggest. Today he is cancer free and enjoys a daily round of his beloved golf.
As noted in my above referenced article, chemotherapy does not cure cancer and it only increases the survival time by about 2-3% for those who opt for chemo versus those who opt for nothing at all. After the third year, the survival rate for those who do not opt for chemo begins to surpass that of those who did and every year after that the survival rate gap grows larger and larger in favor of those who chose to forego chemo. That is because chemo does not cure cancer. At best it merely eliminates the detectable symptoms of cancer (the tumorous masses), and in the process it weakens the body and immune system so that the way is paved for the return of cancer against a body even less able to fight it.
At the end of the day, sir, what counts is realizing how the human body actually functions and how chemotherapy and radiation are not the answer to actually curing cancer and keeping it at bay. People develop cancer due to undernourished bodies which are exposed to toxins and other cancer causing agents. Included among those agents are , chemotherapy and radiation (want to talk about mammograms?), as well as other mainstream drugs and vaccinations.
Also at the end of the day, what really counts is lives and the way to save those is to first of all prevent cancer in the first place, and, in the event of cancer, actually eliminating the cause of the cancer as well as the symtoms and not contintuing to pursue highly profitable treatments which manage cancer and playing games with numbers - which also amounts to playing games with peoples lives.
That sir, means nourishing the body instead of poisoning it.No one ever developed cancer or any other illness due to a deficiency in radiation, chemotherapy drugs or other lab created drugs not found in nature.