This Doctor?s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy
 

Chemotherapy is one of the most expensive medical treatments in the world today, but is it actually?effective? Thanks to alternative media and documentaries like the ?Truth About Cancer? series, more and more people beginning to question not only its efficacy, but also whether it actually does more harm than good.

Believe it or not that questioned may have been answered more than 40 years ago, when a shocking study was released that could have ended the chemo experiment ? if anyone had been paying attention.

Dr. Hardin B. Jones, a former Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, concluded after over 25 years of research not only that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery do not work and do not prolong a cancer patient?s life, but patients receiving these types of oncological treatments in many cases die much sooner than those who choose to be untreated. Treated patients also die a much more painful death.


?People who refused chemotherapy treatment live an average of 12 and a half years longer than the people who are receiving chemotherapy,? wrote Dr. Jones in the journal of New York Academy of Sciences.

In 1969 he presented his research at the American Cancer Society?s Science Writers? Seminar, and the unbelievable findings still send shockwaves through the cancer industry to this day.

Chemotherapy does not work the way it is supposed to

Because chemotherapy kills the healthy cells sooner than it affects the cancer cells, the body is left weakened and defenseless against the disease. Adding big side effects of the toxins of the treatment on top, the human body is left barely holding on to life with no immune system to heal itself.

?It is not the cancer that kills the victim. It?s the breakdown of the defense mechanism that eventually brings death,? told Jones to MIDNIGHT. He and his wife considered what would they do if they were to develop cancer and both agreed that they would stay clear of mainstream treatments and instead do everything to keep the body in as healthy state as possible.

Jones? Studies on Treatment with Vitamins

Jones? research showed great potential for nutritional treatment. Doctors A. Hoffer and Linus Pauling analyzed and reported on Jones? multiple studies. The findings show that on average cancer patients who followed a regimen of vitamins and minerals had 4 times longer survival time than patients who were not following the protocol. Their conclusion was that all cancer patients need to start this protocol as soon as possible. For people who would like to prevent cancer, it would be beneficial to also be on the same protocol just using lower dosages. The regimen included: a daily dose of 12 g Vitamin C, Vitamin B3, B6 and other B-Vitamins, folic acid, Vitamin E, beta carotene, selenium, zinc, and sometimes other minerals (note: natural vitamins and minerals are almost always the best choice; not all are created equal). Other parts of the treatment were following a healthy diet, and taking care of the patients? mental health.

Jones? Other Conclusions about Cancer

In 1969, American Cancer Society published Jones? aforementioned presentation from the 11th Science Writers? Seminar. Cancer biology was one of the main research topics for Jones and the subject of this talk.

?A Report on Cancer? delivered these conclusions analyzing years of his research:

There is a strong link between carcinogens and cancer.
Jones stated that the more the person was exposed to a carcinogen, the higher their risk of developing cancer is. Different carcinogens have a slightly different effect and timeframe, but the stronger the individual dose of carcinogen is ? the less time it takes for cancer to develop. With so many carcinogens in today?s food, air and water, it?s no wonder why cancer rates been on the rise.

Surgery and radiation survival data is biased and faulty
Jones provides multiple example of errors in the data when it comes to comparing rates in survival of those patients who went through surgery and/or radiation versus those who were untreated. Most studies he had seen did not count patients who died before the completion of their treatment.

Their deaths were omitted from the data as ?rejected.? By defining two groups as treated and untreated, the treated group had to have finished the treatment in order to be counted in the study. The study looked at whether or not the patient survived after the surgery or operation was over, and those who died during these two types of treatment did not ?meet the criteria? to be in the ?treated? group, and were omitted. The longer the study was, and the more steps it had, the more errors were in the study, stated Jones.

The complete list Jones?s papers (written over a 41-year period) is available online in The Bancroft Library of Berkeley, California.

Has Chemo?s Efficacy Changed?

If you?ve ever met a cancer survivor you know that there are plenty of them out there who have undergone chemo treatments and survived (of course there seem to be far more natural survivors that are not counted).

And with the right nutritional protocol, emotional support, mindset, and other factors it is indeed possible to live on and heal the body after chemo. That being said, key recent studies have not exactly been in chemotherapy?s favor. Even though some have defended the procedure because of recent ?advancements,? the survival rate has remained questionable at best, if not dismal compared to natural and holistic treatments being undertaken at specialty clinics and in people?s homes.

According to a major study conducted by the Department of Radiation Oncology at Northern Sydney Cancer Centre and published in the December 2004 issue of Clinical Oncology, chemotherapy?s real impact on the survival of American adults is a mere 2.1%, and that?s only for up to five years, not a ?true survival rate.? With so much risk and so many nasty side effects surrounding chemo, do you think it?s worth the risk?

Continued This Doctor?s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy | AltHealthWorks.com

this topic is obviously sensitive to people yet you still posting this shit your morbid ghoul.

why?

If I don't do the dirty work, who else will? There are lives to be saved here on GFY! :2 cents:

WeHateWeHatePorn

That's a nice name for someone

no one ever will come to any kind of illumination or enlightenment via what you post.

you are just going to spread bad, negative, weird and creepy vibes as long as you exist on this planet.

I hadn't even thought about it. You know doc goes, you got cancer son.
Oh shit, what are the options.
Chemo son.
Uh ok.

Now I know, I know what I will be refusing if I ever get the big C.

How wrong was Hardin Jones?

While Hardin Jones was part right, his data and his overly pessimistic views are very much a product of his times.

One obvious indication of this is that the overall five year survival from breast cancer in the studies he examined was a dreadful 25 per cent, whereas NCI statistics for 2002 give an overall (all comers) five year survival of about 80% [4]. Some of this difference will be simply due to "lead time bias" i.e. longer survival simply due to most cases being diagnosed earlier in the course of their illness, but it illustrates the very different times.

Hardin Jones was working with data from very early in the last century, mainly from four studies containing the remarkable numbers of 651, 100, 64, and 100 untreated breast cancer patients along with a treated group. These were published in 1926 (!), 1937, (no reference given), and 1937 respectively. With the advanced cancers generally treated in those days, it is likely that most of these patients would be incurable even today.

None of the studies he examined were properly controlled trials. Well-planned clinical studies of any kind were still rare in those times, and it would also have been quite unethical even then to randomise very destructive cancers to a "no treatment" group, as demanded by any reliable comparison of treated with untreated patients.

Where, then, did the untreated patients come from? They were those who "refused operation or who had already advanced to an inoperable state". There are innumerable possible misleading influences in such studies. One is that breast cancers reaching a very advanced and inoperable state locally will include many slow growing, locally malignant cancers with little metastatic potential, where survival can be surprisingly long, if also made utterly miserable by enormous malignant masses, ulcers or cancer-en-cuirasse.

Nevertheless, as pointed out above, it is likely that even in the treated breast cancer groups the natural biology of the cancer was mainly determining length of survival (as applies with many cancers today), and treatment played a largely palliative role. It is also fairly certain in hindsight that the apparent survival benefits from treatment in some of the studies e.g. of cancer of the cervix were real effects, and Hardin Jones very reluctantly does allow this possibility.

The primary objective of medical treatment has always been to cure the patient permanently of their cancer, with palliation a close second. Hardin Jones was determined to argue that cancer always went its own way regardless of treatment, and dismissed contrary evidence whenever found. He even dismissed data favouring the cure of some subgroups of cancer patients, such as a survival curve identical to that of a normal population, by suggesting that they represented "cases with a milder type of disease than is usually reported" (p323). Even if true, that may simply mean that those cancers have been caught before they have been able to metastasise. That remains a primary objective in the treatment of solid cancers and the implications for the patient are the same.

Hardin Jones made a number of such judgements while never himself ever being involved in cancer treatment or clinical research. He was a physiologist and statistician, attached at the time to the Atomic Energy Commission in Berkeley, California.

Hardin Jones and Cancer

All I know is my mom lived another 20 years thanks to chemo.
The same goes for my aunt.
They both had breast cancer and beat it ... thanks to chemotherapy.

I'm genuinely pleased to hear that. :):thumbsup

WeHatePorn is simply providing an alternate view/opinion then what is normally stated in mainstream media. You certainly have a right to disagree with him and the opinion of those that come up with these opinion and results.

I am fortunate enough to come from a very educated family, and consider myself open minded and well traveled. Work has introduced me to tens of thousands of people per year, some of whom have shared their personal stories regarding having serious health issues. I have personally witnessed people improve their health greatly by simply being aware and then making the decision to act on alternate methods of treatment. In the end we make the decision which we think is best for us. Sometimes we win, most often we lose. :2 cents:

My brother starts chemo next week. It's fucked up either way.

I'm having none of that

There are many cases of misdiagnosis with Breast Cancer, it's far too common

You are such a turd.

:error

Oh look !!

WHP's "evidence" turns out to be a sack of shite.

Who would have guessed that was going to happen ?

How long till he replies saying that he is still right anyway and we are all sheep for believing the big pharma, big oil, big food, CIA, false flag, crisis actor, illuminati, Rothchilds, Aliens, BLAH BLAH BLAH...........

The turd messenger perhaps, someone's got to do it, I've got no problem doing the dirty work, as long as it's for the greater good

Yep the delusion is getting stronger.

You just want to get into fights with people, you don't have the patience to research stuff, you still have a use in this project though, thanks for the bump! :thumbsup

the slightest research reveals every time that what you post is complete utter garbage only believed in by the desperate, uneducated, stupid, gullible, insane and criminal.

You run straight into pharmaceutical propaganda and fall for it hook, line and sinker

Really ?

Who do I get into fights with exactly ?

I do enjoy pointing out what a thoroughly reprehensible little turd you are though. You dont give a fuck about the truth, it just has to fit in with your agenda.

The Sandyhook parents dont matter to you, cancer survivors were mis-diagnosed on purpose, Paris was a false flag. It goes on and on. Real people suffering. And you mix it all up in a big bucket of conspiracy to try and make yourself look smart on an adult industry forum.

Get a fucking grip son, this is not reality. You are living like a frightened mouse. You see dark forces behind everything. Evil manipulators rubbing their hands together around a cauldron of greed and power. The world is not nearly as dramatic as that. There are no Lizard people.

For fucks sake do something meaningful with your life. :2 cents:

no it's called the scientific method.

google it.

So this guy is recommending people to do what Steve Jobs did?

He should lose his medical license (if he actually exists and has one).

Far better to go down the Patrick Swayze route I suppose and be dead in under 2 years, whilst being incredibly sick and miserable from the 'treatment' for your last months/years

A friend of mine's mom got cancer several years ago. The type of cancer she had was very treatable and the chemo she could have gotten had about a 70% success rate. My friend convinced her not to do chemo and instead convinced her that drinking alkaline water would cure her. She listened to him and she died.

Of course there is no certainty that she would have lived had she done the chemo, but a 70% success rate is pretty damn good. To this day he wishes he would have shut up and told her to listen to the doctors that have dedicated their lives to fighting cancer and not some bullshit he got off the internet.

Tell that to my mother-in-law


-- who is alive.