Re: No its not

 As "abysmal" as they are, they're much better than the 2 - 3% purported by you.  (A 65% survival rate at 20 years for breast cancer patients is abysmal?  If you take similar aged women and garner their 20 year survival rate, I think it would be an interesting comparison.)

"The study, as was clearly stated in my post, demonstrated that chemotherapy alone only contributed between 2.1 percent and 2.3 percent to 5 year cancer survival rates."

You are simply twisting and distorting the facts and didn't read the analysis of the study that you presented.  The chemotherapy survival rate is NOT 2 - 3% as you imply.

Again your list was survival rates for cancer in general. Not survival rates for chemotherapy. If I took a hundred cases of breast cancer and 99 of them required a lumpectomy and only one was metastasized resulting in death I could still show a 99% success rate for cancer, but the 0% survival rate for chemotherapy. This is how easy it is to manipulate these statistics, which is done all the time.

The survival rate for chemotherapy on breast cancer is 2-3%, which doe not factor in placebo effect, changes in diet, the use of other alternatives, etc. The statistic also do not factor in secondary cancers caused by the therapy or the advancement or lack of advancement of the cancers. Again they can easily manipulate the statistics. If they really want to mislead people they could base the survival rates on those of countries openly using what we refer to as alternatives to actually address the cause of the cancer and thereby achieving much higher survival rates than in the US.