body-container-line-1

Improving Prostate Cancer Life Expectancy

Feature Article Improving Prostate Cancer Life Expectancy
SEP 28, 2017 LISTEN

In increasing Prostate Cancer Life Expectancy; let’s look at the Statistics about prostate cancer life expectancy:

99% of men diagnosed with the most common types of prostate cancer will survive for more than 5 years

95% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will survive for more than 10 years

76% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will survive for more than 15 years

Considering most men are around 70 years old when diagnosed with prostate cancer the above statistics illustrate the benefits of changing your lifestyle and diet rather than rushing to receive unstable medical treatments. In fact, by changing your diet and lifestyle a diagnosis of prostate cancer could have little or no impact on your life expectancy.

Based on this description, what kinds of things would cause “cure rates” to go up? Instead of lengthening the time a person lives after diagnoses, how about diagnosing the cancer earlier? By diagnosing cancer earlier, there is a longer period of time between diagnosis and death, thus increasing the percentage of people who live more than 5 years between diagnosis and death.

Before a person is diagnosed with cancer, it is quite common for the person to have had cancer for 5 or 10 years before it is diagnosed. Thus, if cancer is diagnosed at an earlier and earlier state, there will be a higher and higher percentage of people who live for 5 years between diagnoses and death. By simply diagnosing the disease earlier, “cure rates” go up, even if chemotherapy doesn't improve life expectancy at all.

This is undoubtedly the reason the American Cancer Society (an orthodox “charity”) has been pushing women to get mammograms every year, in spite of the fact that mammograms can cause cancer because they are X-Rays. Thus, the American Cancer Society has had a positive effect on “cure rates” without having done anything about life expectancy. They have also had an effect on the percentage of people who get cancer that number has also gone up.

Another trick orthodox medicine uses is to ignore counting people who die because of the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation. For example, someone who dies of pneumonia, as a result of their immune system being destroyed by chemotherapy, is generally not counted as a “cancer” death. Likewise, someone whose liver is destroyed by chemotherapy, and dies of liver “disease,” is also not counted as a “cancer” death.

Some cancers are extremely slow growing. Thus, “cure rates” for these types of cancer look very good, but not because the people are cured, but because the cancer is slow growing and this is the case of prostate cancer but the unfortunate thing is that it is aggressive in black men so black men need different approach in tackling it.

Since many people who are on chemotherapy die of malnutrition and opportunistic infections, many doctors tell their cancer patients to take nutritional supplements. This can lead to the person living longer (because they do not die as quickly from malnutrition or opportunistic infections), but it makes chemotherapy look better! In other words, “cure rates” go up because of the nutritional supplements, but the effects of chemotherapy may have been unchanged!

Some patients secretly take alternative treatments to treat their cancer without telling their doctors (during or after orthodox treatments). This makes orthodox medicine survival rates look good, but not because of chemotherapy or radiation. Another trick is to change the standards for what kind of people are parts of the statistics. In other words, if they start including people with less severe cancers (which obviously have a higher “cure rate”), they can get their “cure rate” numbers up, the cancer tutors.com says. The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More men with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being “cured”. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly. By using these tricks they can make it appear that cancer research is progressing slowly, when in fact cancer research has made very little overall improvements in life expectancy or quality of life in the past 80 years. The general prostate cancer outlook in Ghana is a disaster compared to other countries like the UK.

Findings from the Review
1. Prostate cancer life expectancy rate is based on numerous factors.

2. Prostate cancer life expectancy rate is not a universal occurrence

3. The truth is that the measurement statistics of orthodox medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size) versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune system, destruction of vital organs, etc.).

4. The reductions in tumor size have anything to do with life expectancy.

5. It makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other cells which are more likely to turn cancerous.

6. Chemotherapy itself causes cancer or adds more cancer cells during your treatment pathway.

7. Chemotherapy has other weaknesses. There is an increased incidence of second, apparently unrelated malignancies in patients who have been “cured” by means of anticancer drugs. This is probably because the drugs themselves are carcinogenic. When radiation and chemotherapy were given together, the incidence of these second tumors was approximately twenty-five times the expected rate.

8. Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them. In either case, a person who is cured of cancer by these drastic means may find herself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor a few years later.

9. With regards to “length of life since diagnosis,” the concepts of “remission” and “reduction” are ineffective at evaluating the quantitative “length of life since diagnosis” because they fail to calculate an accurate number of cancer cells still in the body (at the time the cancer is determined to be in “remission”), and they fail to take into account the severely weakened immune system that can no longer routinely deal with cancer cells (a normal immune system routinely kills cancer cells, but not a weakened immune system). Thus, there is a significant probability the same cancer will return or another cancer will arise.

10. In other words: there is no proven correlation between being in “remission” and increasing the “length of life since diagnosis!” Perhaps more importantly, there is no evidence that chemotherapy and radiation significantly increase the life of patients (compared to those who refuse treatment or go with alternative treatments), which would be necessary to justify their use.

11. In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all. No treatment ‘proved a significantly better policy for patients' survival and for quality of remaining life.'”

12. With regards to “quality of life since diagnosis,” there is no question that chemotherapy and radiation fail miserably in this area. Chemotherapy and radiation both decrease a person's quality of life to such a degree that many cancer patients in treatment quit their treatment program. They would rather be dead than have to go through such misery.

13. With regards to “strength of the immune system during and after treatments,” chemotherapy and radiation treatments fail miserably in this criterion also. In fact it is the destruction of the immune system that causes many patients to die during treatment.

14. In short, the concepts of “remission” and “reduction” fail to relate to meaningful statistics with regards to “length of life since diagnosis.” Chemotherapy and radiation fail the other two criteria in spite of a patient going into remission.

15. In conclusion with extreme vigor that the concept of “remission” and “reduction” are not valuable measures by which to judge the effectiveness of orthodox treatments for cancer. In future we need to use verified statistics to compare orthodox medicine with alternative medicine.

The Definition of Cure Rates
What is called “cure rates” or “survival rates” orthodoxically? Orthodox medicine normally says that if a person lives for five years after diagnosis, they are “cured” of cancer, even if they die in the sixth year. In other words, if there is more than 5 years between diagnosis and death, they were “cured” of cancer. This is how they determine their “survival rates.” A person might wonder why the medical community would use such a concept, knowing that the concept of “length of life since diagnosis” is so simple, so intuitive and so logical. And so useful says cancer tutor.com. In explaining this, let us return to the automobile metaphor used by cancer tutor.com.

How can the B companies hide the fact that they intentionally make really crappy cars? They can use statistics. Suppose they decide to do a study to find out how many of their cars have their engine replaced within the first 30,000 miles. The number will be quite low, almost as low as the same statistic calculated for G company cars. This statistic will make it appear that the B companies make cars as good as the G companies. They didn't lie, they used statistics. G company cars are far superior to the B company cars, but you would never know that by looking at that one statistic. That is the whole purpose of using such a statistic!

The G company car makers, on the other hand, would want to see the percentage of cars made by the B companies that still have their original engine after 150,000 miles. That would be a very low percentage for the B companies, and a very high percentage for the G companies. This statistic would make it very clear which company made, by far, the best cars. But the B companies control the airwaves and the media would never allow its “journalists” to report that statistic.

This is exactly how the cancer industry hides the very poor results of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Their definition of “cure rate” is based on the percentage of cancer patients who live 5 years, between diagnoses and death, not 10 years and not 15 years. How does the 5 year number tell us what percentage of cancer patients eventually die of cancer? It doesn't. The orthodox medical community has done exactly what the B companies above have done, lied with statistics.

Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for “cure” by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way.

Dr. Raphael NyarkoteyObu is a research Professor of Prostate Cancer and Holistic Medicine at Da Vinci College of Holistic Medicine, Larnaca city, Cyprus and President of Men's Health Foundation Ghana. You can reach him on 0541234556

body-container-line