Among twenty side effects include: infertility, miscarriages, birth defects in children, damage to the heart, liver, kidneys, nervous system and production of secondary tumors (!!!). "Not only are they able to trigger the transformation of normal cells into malignant cells, but tend to reduce the occurrence of endogenous defenses against cancer." They know too that this practice is a killer. However this had no doubts.
anthracycline: "Stomatitis, alopecia, and gastrointestinal disorders are common but reversible. Cardiomyopathy, a typical side effect of this class of chemotherapy can be acute (rarely severe) or chronic (death nel 50 % dei casi). Tutti gli antraciclinici sono potenzialmente mutageni e cancerogeni”.
Procarbazina: “E’ cancerogena, mutagena e teratogena (malformazioni nei figli N.d.A.) e il suo impiego è associato a un rischio del 5-10 % di leucemia acuta, che aumenta per i soggetti trattati anche con terapia radiante”.
Bene; potrei fermarmi qui e finire questa relazione; sarebbe più che sufficiente. Ma poiché non mi basta chiudere la bocca agli oncologi e ai loro lacchè, ma voglio anche cucirla con filo d’acciaio, ecco di seguito una valanga di altri dati.
Faccio un esempio di come fanno la media delle “guarigioni” e, per semplificare, prendo in esame solo due tipi of cancer. Lung cancer: 40,000 cases per year, 10% of "healing"; testicular cancer: 2,000 cases, 87% of "healing." (87 +10) / 2 = 48.5 The average recoveries of the two types of cancer would then be 48.5%. E 'unworthy that allows these people to publicly say similar cialtronerie! En passant, the proper operation is: (40.000x10/100 x87/100 +2000) / (40000 +2000) x100 = 13.7 The actual average percentage is thus 13.7%. Quite a difference!
analyze another "given" triumphalist. Oncologists are saying that the chances of curing cancer are much higher today, 39% (or the famous 50%), compared with 20% in 1930. But how is it then that cancer deaths have increased alarmingly over the past 70 years (see below)? The fact is that in 1930 there were not any sophisticated means of diagnosis and awareness campaigns for early diagnosis, so the cancer was discovered too late and so the time between diagnosis and death was short, if not short. Today, however, because the diagnosis is in the very earliest, death comes later than the diagnosis itself and more often than the fateful five years!
Prof Luigi Di Bella warns that "if a person is discharged from the hospital is said to be in remission. When he returns is treated and was discharged un'altra volta. Se ogni dimissione viene considerata come un dato positivo, i conti aumentano. E siccome non si può morire più di una volta, se un individuo è stato dimesso 9 volte ed è morto una volta sola si avrà un 90% di guarigione e il 10% di mortalità. La fortuna dei medici è che si muore una volta sola”10
Estremamente importante è poi “la vasta indagine condotta per 23 anni dal Prof. Hardin B.
Jones, fisiologo presso l'Università della California, e presentata nel 1975 al Congresso di Cancerologia, presso l'Università di Berkeley. Oltre a denunciare l'uso di statistiche falsificate, egli prova che i cancerosi che non si sottopongono alle tre terapie canoniche (chemio, radio surgery and note) or at least survive longer than those who receive these therapies. As Jones shows, the patients with breast cancer who refused conventional therapies, showed a median survival of 12 years and a half, four times higher than that of three years achieved by those who are subjected to comprehensive care 11.
"A study by four British researchers, published in one of the world's most influential medical journals, The Lancet 12/13/1975, and that concerns 188 patients with inoperable bronchial carcinoma. The average life span of those treated with chemotherapy was complete in 75 days, while those who received no treatment had a median survival of 220 days' 12.
Another fundamental fact that states such as official therapies for cancer are ineffective, are the statistics of death from cancer. Despite the tens of trillions of pounds spent on research and hundreds of trillions for treatments, data from statistical offices of all the western states show that deaths from cancer from 1950 to the end of the century and have continually increased substantially.
'Meeting of September 1994 the President's Cancer Panel: "Overall, the reports on the major successes against cancer must be compared with these data," said Bailar, indicating a simple graph showing a sharp and continuous increase in mortality cancer in the United States from 1950 to 1990. "I'll be back to conclude, as did seven years ago, that our two decades of war on cancer has been a failure across the board. "
Who is this character that expresses ideas as heretical, a doctor alternative? A charlatan, as has been Di Bella called? A healer who takes advantage of the poor sick? One who does not know the percentage of recovery?
None of that. It is difficult to define or incompetent charlatan, John C. Bailar III, a distinguished professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McGill University One of the most famous experts in oncology in the United States and around the world. Not to mention the rest of an audience to the applause of the President's Cancer Panel was created as a result of the National Cancer Act, a program to combat cancer, which was signed by U.S. President Richard Nixon December 23, 1971 and on which they have spent until 1994 as many as 25 billion dollars. The data relating to the situation of the fight against cancer are provided directly to the President of the United States. The main conclusion of
Bailar, with which the NCI (National Cancer Institute) agreed, is that cancer mortality in the United States increased by 7% from 1975 to 1990. Like all those mentioned by Bailar, this figure was adjusted to compensate for the change in size and composition of the population with respect to age, so the increase can not be attributed to the fact that you die less frequently for other diseases 13. The raw data are even heavier. Finally, I cite the conclusion I have arrived researchers from the Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology of the University La Sapienza of Rome through experimental research.
They "confirm, in fact, that some chemotherapeutic drugs, such as citosinarabinoside, methotrexate, vincristine and cisplatino4 (substances commonly used in treatments and daily note), in particular tumor cell lines increases the resistance to cell death (...) These results are surprising because they show that these non-chemotherapy kill cancer cells, as is generally thought, but by preventing apoptosis (cell death = note), facilitates tumor growth 14.
At this point I think I can really close this report because the two points stated in my press release
1) Chemotherapy does not cure cancer, but it kills. 2) Its use is founded only in the economic interests of pharmaceutical companies.
can be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment