Breaking News

Chemotherapy: Fraudulent and Deadly?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Over the years I have repeatedly found that all medical recommendations are best treated with a large dose of scepticism.  Nowhere is this more true than in the treatment of cancer.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Patients who are diagnosed with cancer find themselves in a state of shock. And yet, while in a state of shock, they find themselves needing to make a number of vital decisions very quickly.

One of the big questions is often this one: “Should I have chemotherapy?”

Chemotherapy might improve a patient’s chances of survival by three to five per cent though that modest figure is usually over-generous. For example, the evidence suggests that chemotherapy offers breast cancer patients an uplift in survival of little more than 2.5%.

When you consider that chemotherapy can kill and does terrible damage to healthy cells, and to the immune system, it is difficult to see the value of taking chemotherapy.

I don’t think it is any exaggeration to suggest that much of the hype around chemotherapy has taken the treatment into the area of fraud – far more fraudulent indeed than treatments which are dismissed as irrelevant or harmful by the establishment.

Chemotherapy is a cull, designed by the conspirators and the medical establishment to cut the cost of caring for cancer patients.

The chances are that the doctors looking after you – especially the specialist oncologists in hospital – will recommend chemotherapy. They may push hard to accept their recommendation. They may even be cross or dismissive or assume you are ignorant or afraid if you decide you don’t want it. Cancer charities often shout excitedly about chemotherapy. But they are also often closely linked to the drug companies which make money out of chemotherapy – which in my view makes them part of the large and thriving “cancer industry.” It is important to remember that drug companies exist to make money and they will do whatever is necessary to further this aim. They lie and they cheat with scary regularity and they have no interest in helping patients or saving lives. Remember that: the sole purpose of drug companies is to make money, whatever the human cost might be. They will happily suppress potentially life-saving information if doing so increases their profits. It is my belief that by allying themselves with drug companies, cancer charities have become corrupt.

Little or no advice is given to patients about how they themselves might reduce the risk of their cancer returning. The implication is that it’s chemotherapy or nothing. So, for example, doctors are unlikely to tell breast cancer patients that they should avoid dairy foods, though the evidence that they should is very strong. The one certainty is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone you see will tell you all the truths about chemotherapy. The sad truth is that the statistics about chemotherapy are, of course, fiddled to boost drug company sales and, therefore, drug company profits. And the deaths caused by chemotherapy are often misreported or underestimated. So, for example, if a patient who has been taking chemotherapy dies of a sudden heart attack their death will probably be put down as a heart attack – rather than as a result of the cancer or the chemotherapy. There may be some mealy-mouthed suggestion that the death was treatment-related but the drug will probably not be named and shamed. Neither the chemotherapy nor the cancer will be deemed responsible. What this means in practice is that the survival statistics for chemotherapy are considerably worse than the figures which are made available – considerably worse, indeed, than whatever positive effect might be provided by a harmless placebo.

Here’s another thing: patients who have chemotherapy and survive five years are counted as having been cured by chemotherapy. And patients who have chemotherapy and then die five and a bit years after their diagnosis don’t count as cancer-related deaths. And they certainly don’t count as chemotherapy deaths.

A 2016 academic study looked at five-year survival rates and concluded that in 90% of patients (including the commonest breast cancer tumours), chemotherapy increased five-year survival by less than 2.5%. Only a very small number of cancers (such as testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease) were treated effectively by chemotherapy. On top of this dismal success rate, it must be remembered that chemotherapy cripples the immune system (now, at long last, recognised as important in the fight against cancer), damages all living cells, damages the intestines, can cause nausea and tinnitus, can damage nerves, can and does damage the bone marrow with the result that leukaemia develops,(staggeringly, iatrogenic myeloid leukaemia, usually known as “therapy-related” in an attempt to distance the disease from doctors, is, in ten per cent of cases, a result of chemotherapy), damages the heart and the hearing and will, in a significant number of patients, result in death.

It is true that chemotherapy may reduce the size of a tumour but in stage 4 cancer chemotherapy seems to encourage a cancer to return more quickly and more aggressively. The cancer stem cells seem to be untouched by the chemotherapy drugs.

Despite all this, the protocol in the treatment of cancer is to turn to chemotherapy and doctors are always reluctant to try anything else.

The Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, which represents 24 Royal Colleges, and a number of other important health bodies, has reported that chemotherapy can do more harm than good when prescribed as palliatives for terminally ill cancer patients. The colleges criticise chemotherapy advocates for “raising false hopes” and doing “more harm than good.” They concluded that chemotherapy drugs are unlikely to work.

On the other hand, I wasn’t surprised to see a big cancer charity disagreeing with the 24 medical colleges and claiming that thousands of patients do benefit. My view, which I recognise is probably not shared by the majority of family doctors or oncologists, is that many cancer charities around the world are the unacceptable face of cancer care. It seems to me to be more concerned with making money and keeping the drug companies rich than with caring for patients.

Another report has concluded that chemotherapy can, in some circumstances, actually promote the spread of cancer cells. It was reported in 2017, for example, that when breast cancer patients have chemotherapy before surgery the drug can make the malignant cells spread to distant sites – resulting in metastatic cancer and sending the patient straight from Stage 1 to Stage 4.

Scientists analysed tissue from 20 breast cancer patients who had 16 weeks of chemotherapy and the tissues around the tumour were more conducive to spread in most of the patients. In five of the patients, there was a five times greater risk of spread. In none of the patients was the tissue around the tumour less friendly to cancer cells and to metastasis. The problem, it seems is that cancer cells have a great ability to transform themselves and the chemotherapy, designed to kill cancer cells, may encourage the development of cells which are resistant to drugs, which survive the treatment and which form a new cancer.

The one side effect associated with chemotherapy that is widely known is the loss of hair. But that is, to be honest, the least of the problems. Chemotherapy kills healthy cells as well as cancer cells and the severity of the side effects depends on the age and health of the patient as well as on the type of drug used and the dosage in which it is prescribed. And whereas some side effects do disappear after treatment (as the good cells recover) there are some side effects which may never go away.

I mentioned the serious side effects a little earlier but here, as a reminder, is a list of just some of the problems that can be caused by chemotherapy drugs:

The cells in the bone marrow can be damaged, producing a shortage of red blood cells and possibly leukaemia.

The central nervous system can be damaged with a result that the memory may be affected and the patient’s ability to concentrate or think clearly changed. There may be changes to balance and coordination. These effects can last for years. Apart from affecting the brain, chemotherapy can also cause pain and tingling in the hands and feet, numbness, weakness and pain. Not surprisingly, depression is not uncommon.

The digestive system is commonly affected with sores forming in the mouth and throat. These may produce infection and may make food taste unpleasant. Nausea and vomiting may also occur. The weight loss associated with chemotherapy may be a result of a loss of appetite.

In addition to hair loss (which can affect hair all over the body), the skin may be irritated and nails may change colour and appearance.

The kidneys and bladder may be irritated and damaged. The result may be swollen ankles, feet and hands. Osteoporosis is a fairly common problem and increases the risk of bone fractures and breaks. Women who have breast cancer and who are having treatment to reduce their oestrogen levels are particularly at risk.

Chemotherapy can produce hormone changes with a wide variety of symptoms.

The heart may be damaged and patients who already have weak hearts may be made worse by chemotherapy.

And the other problem with chemotherapy is that it can damage the immune system.

And it is known that chemotherapy can damage DNA.

And does chemotherapy alter the nature of cancer cells? Can it, for example, trigger a change from an oestrogen-sensitive cancer cell to a triple negative cell – much harder to treat?

And then there is the risk that chemotherapy might spread cells around the body.

Finally, there is increasing evidence to show that chemotherapy may hasten the death of a number of patients.

Drug companies, cancer charities and doctors recommend chemotherapy because there is big money in it. The least forgivable of these are the cancer charities which exist to protect people but which are ruthless exploiters of patients.

As always, the medical literature is confusing but in the ‘Annuals of Oncology’ I found this: “The upfront use of chemotherapy does not seem to influence the overall outcome of the disease.”

Most doctors won’t tell you this, or even admit it to themselves, but cancer drugs are killing up to 50% of patients in some hospitals. A study by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK found that 2.4% of breast cancer patients die within a month of starting chemotherapy. The figures are even worse for patients with lung cancer where 8.4% of patients die within a month when treated with chemotherapy. When patients die that quickly, I feel that it is safe to assume that they were killed by the treatment, not the disease. At one hospital the death rate for patients with lung cancer treated with chemotherapy was reported at over 50%. Naturally, all the hospitals which took part in the study insisted that chemotherapy prescribing was being done safely. If we accept this then we must also question the validity of chemotherapy. The study showed that the figures are particularly bad for patients who are in poor general health when they start treatment.

Next, think about this.

In the UK, the National Health Service publishes comprehensive guidelines on what must be done if chemotherapy drugs are spilt. There are crisis emergency procedures to be followed if chemotherapy drugs fall on the floor. And yet these drugs are put into people’s bodies. And residues of these dangerous chemicals are excreted in urine and then end up in the drinking water supply. (I explained several decades ago how prescription drug residues end up in our drinking water.) It is hardly surprising that many patients being treated with chemotherapy report that their quality of life has plummeted.

The standard oncology approach to cancer is to give chemotherapy and then wait and see if the cancer returns. If it does then more chemotherapy is prescribed. The tragedy is that for so many patients, chemotherapy will do more harm than good. Astonishingly, a quarter of cancer patients die of heart attacks – often triggered by deep vein thrombosis and by emboli and brought on by the physical stress of chemotherapy. But these deaths are not included in the official statistics – either for cancer or, just as importantly, for chemotherapy. It is no exaggeration to say that the establishment fiddles the figures to suit its own largely commercial ends – extolling the virtues of drug company products at every opportunity and never failing to throw doubt on any remedy which might threaten the huge cancer industry.

Here’s another thing you might not know.

During the lockdowns and concerns about covid-19, patients who were on chemotherapy were taken off their treatment. They were told that since their treatment would affect their immune systems, they would be more vulnerable to the coronavirus. That’s an important admission because the one thing we know for certain is that a healthy immune system is vital for fighting cancer.

Doctors probably won’t tell you any of this but they won’t deny it because it is all true.

The bottom line is that treatments described in clinical trials, paid for by drug companies and generally reviewed by doctors with drug company links, and then published in medical journals which accept huge amounts of drug company advertising, are the only treatments the medical profession accepts. There is much talk about “peer review” trials but all this means is that another doctor or two, with drug company links, will have looked at the paper and given it their approval.

The word “corrupt” doesn’t come close to describing this whole incestuous system.

Anyone who wants to have chemotherapy should have it. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from using whatever drugs they believe might help them. I’m only interested in providing unbiased, independent information which might help patients make the right decision for themselves.

But too often, I fear, patients beg for treatment, completely understandably, because they want something to be done and because they have been misled by the drug company inspired, and paid for, hype about chemotherapy. And doctors provide that treatment, even though a little research would tell them that they may be doing more harm than good. There are a very few cancers which can be treated well with chemotherapy – but they are very few and they are unfairly and unreasonably promoted as success stories by the drug companies and their shills.

The thing that is forgotten is that chemotherapy can badly damage the patient’s body’s own protections – and with some patients may, therefore, do infinitely more harm than good.

Every patient should decide for themselves – and discuss with their doctors the evidence for and against chemotherapy in their situation. But I think that all patients are entitled to be provided with the background information they would need to help that process of assessment.

Tragically, however, the ignorance about chemotherapy is, sadly, widespread and all-pervasive.

For more truths about medical hazards please see Dr Vernon Coleman’s global bestselling book ‘How to stop your doctor killing you’ – which is available on Amazon.

Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Breaking News, World News

Tagged as:

5 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mankhater
Mankhater
1 month ago

My wife is due to start her (oral) chemo for a cancerous mole (now removed with no apparent cancerous cells in her body) She has BRAF protein attached to her cells so naturally she has been steered to chemo for a year/3 monthly bloods/3 monthly CT scans. I cannot convince her to go the ‘monitored’ route that was also discussed…… To say i am concerned is an understatement

John Langdon
John Langdon
Reply to  Mankhater
1 month ago

Please research Dr Simmocini on YouTube, and GODS HEALING TREE Graviola, which is a very powerful Immune system booster. This was researched by The Purdue Pharmaceutical and found to be 10,000 times more potent on cancer cells than Chemotherapy.

Anonymous
Anonymous
Reply to  John Langdon
1 month ago

Iodine Applied lightly daily will usually do the trick.

A Person
A Person
1 month ago

The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”

pubmed (dot) ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov/15630849/

A Person
A Person
1 month ago

“The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”

pubmed (dot) ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (slash) 15630849

Vernon Cooke
Vernon Cooke
1 month ago

Thanks for the article. I have been recently diagnosed with lymphoma.   Something like this you got to make your own decision when it comes to getting chemotherapy.   How do you feel about it?   Don’t let the doctor, relatives, friends, etc make the decision for you.  You are the one who has to live with the decision you make, not the other person.   I tell people, “I may not know everything, but neither does the other person.”  Doctors are not perfect.   One time 20 years ago, they recommended open heart surgery.  I am still here.  You got to be careful whom you listen to, including those who write articles on the Exposé.   You got to take everything you read with a grain of salt.   I was diagnosed several months ago with lymphoma but so far I’ve haven’t started Chemotherapy.   I read the story of Gene Scott, a televangelist from California and he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the year 2000 and he refused treatment because he believed in divine healing and he died in the year 2005.  

Mary Ann Dowrick
Mary Ann Dowrick
1 month ago

Worked as a rn in oncology in the 70’s. The days when the nurses mixed the chemo drugs in the med room. We were obviously exposed to chemo, as we could smell the chemicals when diluting the powder with normal saline in preparation for an iv drip. The treatment was brutal, cruel and ineffective. But that hardly stopped the oncologists following the wash rinse repeat cycle. The main difference in administering chemo in the U.K. and the USA today is that in the USA everyone makes a buck off chemo. The doctors, the hospital, and of course pharma.

Over the years I have witnessed too
Many family and friends take chemo and suffer terribly in all the ways you described.

I was saddened when my stepson took a job with a children’s cancer charity. Just think what we could do with all the charity money raised and instead raise awareness on how to prevent cancer based on science. Drs. Michael Greger, Joel Fuhrman, Dean Ornish, William Li, Rupy Aujla to name a few who believe a healthy habit life can prevent cancer.

antiqueandy
antiqueandy
1 month ago

Bottom line is, no matter what the issue is, those that run the NHS and the Government do nothing for our benefit.

INGRID C DURDEN
INGRID C DURDEN
1 month ago

almost 100 years ago nurse (later doctor) Budwig developed her protocol in Germany. Hardly anyone knows about it, but it is effective on 3 out of 4 cancer patients. There is online info for it. The US allows it but only together with traditional cut-burn-poison. Mexico seems to have clinics who use it. There is also the Dutch Dr Moerman, a ‘quack’ who healed dozens of people given up by traditional doctors. I am so glad you publish this article because indeed, not only is the cancer industry a huge money maker, but the foundations who live off people’s hard made money, fuel the cancer industry instead of trying to help. I have long stopped giving to these thieves, traitors, criminals!

Abigail
Abigail
Reply to  INGRID C DURDEN
1 month ago

R. R. Rife did it with resonance frequency, killing only the cancerous cells, the Budwig diet sounds ‘fake’ but the science behind it is a chemical reaction giving energy to the cells: Cottage cheese mixed with line seed oil, there is a special tea from Mexico, coffee enemas because depoisoning is the first, many seeds with cyanide content were reported to work, apricot’s, the base of B17 named as Laetrite, carnivore diet with no cheating, IV vit C, oxygen cure and a couple of more. For head, brain the famous Frankincense oil. The majority were presented in the Ty Bollinger series, The Truth about Cancer.
There is no cancer in families who live on an animal based diet from quality ingredients, no oils, milk products are raw.

Mafe olaechea
Mafe olaechea
1 month ago

Además de criminales, asesinos indolentes a los pacientes que les diagnostican cáncer creada y perfeccionada por la industria medicocriminalfatmaceutica le meten quimioterapia, radioterapia, masacre mediante cirugía destructiva, les dan por el resto de sus miserables vidas quimioterapia tomada en pastillas. Una hermana está en ese proceso, desgraciadamente la ignorancia y el miedo de ella y muchos pacientes atacados no escuchan razones, optan por sacrificar sus vidas y depender de los hampones.

Tony Ryan
Tony Ryan
1 month ago

There is no conventional cure for cancer. I say that categorically.

However, there are some 20 unconventional cures. Yes, actual cures.

I have used Cansema (black salve plus DMSO) successfully for eight years, ridding myself of 40 or so skin cancers of various varieties with little or no scarring. The only negative is the refusal of doctors to prescribe adequate painkillers. They refuse to provide relief from pain as punishment for abandoning the mediical mafia.

Currently, I am experimenting with one ivermectin tablet per week, to see if this eliminates the cellular parasite that ostensibly causes cancers.

Any advice on dosage wil be gratefully received.

Dave Owen
Dave Owen
Reply to  Tony Ryan
1 month ago

Hi Tony Ryan,
Pleased you are trying various cures.
Chlorine Dioxide and Baking soda are worth a try.
Abigail has a few different ideas.
The main thing to know is, cancer does not like an alkaline environment.

Abigail
Abigail
Reply to  Dave Owen
1 month ago

Maybe Dave, I thought the same but right now I don’t know anymore. There was a podcast with Andrew Kaufman on ‘holographic blood’ where it was told that when they found cancer in the body, the environment was always alkaline. Maybe worth to check… so many confusing info. The men he made the interview with managed to re-build(?) somehow the Naessens microscope or somatoscope, able to show living processes in the blood.
Also there is a clinic on abroad, they use carnivore diet to cure cancer and other serious diseases with quite a success but as far as I know, meat is also in the acidic range but alkaline. If you check you’ll find that vegetables are on the alkaline group mainly while the meat, milk, etc are in the acidic group. My life experience showed that there is no cancer in families where the diet is meat based, nose-to-tail with the less processing just how I wrote. There was an article on Daily Mail some 4 years ago, following 20-25 youngish people with cancer, 60-70% were vegetarian. Chemcials or the veggies themselves?
The Bollinger cures use a lot of veggies – juicing – is it about the veggies or is it about the structured water in them?
According to Dr. Barry Gloves we are designed to eat meat, simply because our stomach and gut is more similar to the carnivores’ than the herbivores’. He also proves that every animal including us, lives on fat, herbivores have a stomach-gut system to ferment, reform plants to fat. We don’t don’t have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5zdWucv6I

Plants are designed to defend themselves with anti nutrition and poisons.

Abigail
Abigail
Reply to  Tony Ryan
1 month ago

Amandha Volmer, look around her website.

https://yummy.doctor/blog/the-ivermectin-double-cross/

https://yummy.doctor/video-category/cancer/

To my best knowledge parasites are not the cause but the result. They are there to help you get rid of metals.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 month ago

Such belated news They stopped using chemo here at least a decade ago because they knew it did more harm than good

trackback
1 month ago

[…]    POR RHODA WILSON EM 21 DE AGOSTO DE 2023 […]

uftonwood
uftonwood
1 month ago

I sent this article to my sister who’s husband has just been diagnosed with cancer. In reply she related this to me:
‘My friend’s dad diagnosed lung cancer 10 years ago. Had one chemo session. He was so ill afterwards he told them to stick it. Of course docs tried to persuade him quite forcefully but he would have none of it. Dismissed! He is 83 now, still alive, still driving. Looking after his wife who has dementia. She has just been put in a home.
Docs said without chemo he had one year to live.’

Vicki S Dillard
Vicki S Dillard
4 days ago

In 2005 I had chemotherapy for colon cancer in addition to surgery and radiation. The cancer has not returned in all of these years. But I had one big tumor, and it is possible that all was removed in the surgery, and it had not metastized. However, I have been in the hospital 30 times, at least, since then with partial bowel obstructions and 3 more major surgeries. I have lost most of my intestines and now have chronic kidney disease. Is it related to the treatment. I think so but more due to the radiation than the chemotherapy; although, it is possible that both are responsible.