Posted: Oct 25, 2016 12:02 am
by Macdoc
Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004 called “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies

The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998.

Fuck - 12 year old article you hang your argument on for a 5 year survival period ......your meme is dangerous and I have asked this entire thread be nuked ......
and the paper analysis of end result from 20 years ago for the OUTCOMES which makes the treatment start 1993

Why not look at a far more current overview instead of peddling your crap with a clear agenda behind it.

Sound familiar

Chemotherapy doesn’t work? Not so fast… (A lesson from history)

Posted by David Gorski on October 28, 2013
If there’s one medical treatment that proponents of “alternative medicine” love to hate, it’s chemotherapy. Rants against “poisoning” are a regular staple on “alternative health” websites, usually coupled with insinuations or outright accusations that the only reason oncologists administer chemotherapy is because of the “cancer industrial complex” in which big pharma profits massively from selling chemotherapeutic agents and oncologists and hospitals profit massively from administering them. Indeed, I’ve lost track of the number of such rants I’ve deconstructed over the years. Usually, they boil down to two claims: (1) that chemotherapy doesn’t work against cancer (or, as I’ve called it before, the “2% gambit“) and (2) that the only reason it’s given is because doctors are brainwashed in medical school or because of the profit motive or, of course, because of a combination of the two. Of course, the 2% gambit is based on a fallacious cherry picking of data and confusing primary versus adjuvant chemotherapy, and chemotherapy does actually work rather well for many malignancies, but none of this stops the flow of misinformation.

continues ... m-history/


As slow as it seems to those of us living it, cancer research has produced a lot of breakthroughs. Those who wonder why we haven’t cured “cancer” yet should read earlier posts I’ve written on the topic. Cancer is hard. Real hard. It is also hundreds of diseases, not some monolithic disease, just as chemotherapy is dozens of drugs and hundreds of drug combinations, not some monolithic mythical “chemotherapy.” It is not reasonable to expect that a span of a mere few decades or even a century is enough to cure all cancer. We have, however, brought the cure of several cancers within reach and do actually cure many cancers. Also, contrary to popular belief, the death rate from cancer is decreasing. In the US, it’s been decreasing for nearly the last 25 years, as shown in this graph from the most recent American Cancer Society statistics:

Cancer statistics, 2013
Note that this is happening even as the age-adjusted incidence of cancer is remaining steady or slightly increasing. Fewer and fewer people with cancer die of their disease. I realize that this is no consolation to anyone who has lost loved ones to the disease (as I have), but it does give hope for the future.

And, yes, promoters of alternative cancer cures can deny it all they like, but chemotherapy is indeed a major part of the reason for better outcomes and more hope in cancer. “Cut, poison, burn”?

Well, yes. Unfortunately, that’s what works, including the “poison” part.

Until we find something that works without as much morbidity, “cut, poison, burn” will have to do.

Your article is quoted by quack site after quack sight .....makes you an enabler for the charlatans.
I've faced cancer, you haven't and you're a crank.


Diffuse large cell lymphoma is the most common, accounting for 60%-70% of the cases. In decreasing frequency, the remainder of the cases are made up of anaplastic large cell lymphoma and peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Potentially curable with combination chemotherapy, if left untreated, the median survival of patients with these lymphomas is measured in months.

because I did not listen to the likes of you

Instead for those who get treated,,,,

Lymphoma - Cancer Council Australia › About cancer › Types of cancer
Sep 14, 2016 - For people diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, prognosis is ... with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Australia have a five year survival rate of 71%.

and you can bust that out further in more detail for different types ... s-lymphoma

Survival for high grade lymphomas
High grade (aggressive) lymphomas generally need more intensive treatment than the low grade types. But they often respond well to treatment. Many people are cured. The most common type of high grade lymphoma is diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

There are no UK-wide survival statistics available for the different types and stages of NHL.

Survival statistics are available for each stage of diffuse B cell lymphoma in one area of England. These are for people diagnosed between 2004 and 2011.

Stage 1

Around 65 out of 100 people (around 65%) will survive for 5 years or more after they are diagnosed.

Stage 2

Around 70 out of 100 people (around 70%) will survive for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 3

Over 50 out of 100 people (over 50%) will survive for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 4

Almost 50 out of 100 people (almost 50%) will survive for 5 years or more after their diagnosis.

Burkitt's lymphoma is a less common type of high grade lymphoma which can grow quite quickly. We don't have statistics for the different stages of Burkitt's lymphoma. But overall, almost 60 out of 100 people with Burkitt's lymphoma (almost 60%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after they are diagnosed.

Back to top

Survival for all non Hodgkin lymphoma
Generally for people with non Hodgkin lymphoma in England and Wales

about 80 out of every 100 people (about 80%) will survive their cancer for 1 year or more after they are diagnosed

around 70 out of every 100 people (around 70%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis

almost 65 out of every 100 people (almost 65%) will survive their cancer for 10 years or more after they are diagnosed

Read more at ... eIpY6TG.99

months almost certainly untreated
versus years with treatment ( BTW a cure is five years )

Why are you spouting your crap given that difference. ?