According to official figures, from 2009 to 2015, the 5 years cancer “relative” survival rate has been estimated to be close to 70 percent, 66.3 for men and 68 percent for women. (Source).
Comparing this rate with past rates, the Cancer SEER statistics committee states in relevant part that “In the United States there has been an increase in the 5-year relative survival rate between people diagnosed with cancer in 1975-1977 (48.9%) and people diagnosed with cancer in 2007-2013 (69.2%); these figures coincide with a 20% decrease in cancer mortality from 1950 to 2014. (Source)
The official evidence thus shows that there is some progress in the “War against Cancer”. (1)
However, there’s still cause for concern because many cancer patients who have achieved the 5 years remission benchmark either get a new cancer thereafter (2) or contract a relapse (reoccurrence) of the former cancer. For Breast cancer, relapses have been recorded up to 20 years later. (Source) This reality also skews the Government’s survival Statistics because these post 5 years relapses are counted as a new cancer. Meanwhile, the facts show that cancer incidence keeps on rising.
“In 2018, an estimated 1,735,350 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 609,640 people will die from the disease. (3) (Source)
(1). While conventional oncology has been relatively successful with the “liquid” cancers (e.g. lymphomas and leukemia) and, inter alia, testicular cancer insofar as achieving the five-year “survival cut-off date”, (often over 70 percent) it has not fared as well with “solid” cancers, which constitute the majority of malignancies. In this regard, alternative oncologists like to quote this study: “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”. Cf. Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton, The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. M. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16(8):549-60. (Source) However, this study is often invoked out of context. Alternative oncologists or cancer marketers (peddlers) often fail to inform that this study is only for solid tumors, only for chemotherapy and that it is an old study from 2004. Since this date, there has been documented five years survival progress for most solid cancers, if only because most of these cancers are not treated with chemo alone as in this 2004 study. In the conventional world, most cancers today are treated with a wide array of treatment techniques, from targeted and combinational drug therapies to immunotherapeutics, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, including the French BCG which has been used for many decades, hormonal treatment, surgeries, bone marrow transpants and, inter alia, photodynamic and laser interventions. Depending on the situation, the European Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy approach has also been used more often than not with sucess insofar as the five years survival rate is concerned. (Source) On the other hand, Insulin potentiation therapy is more of an integrative oncology technique that remains, for Conventional oncologists, controversial.
(2). There has been a consensus on the fact that both radiotherapy and chemotherapy are carcinogenic. However, giving the cost-benefit analysis of conventional oncology experts, contracting new cancers post 5 or 10 years is less urgent than suppressing the ongoing tumor (s) with the conventional system’s weapons of mass cellular destruction.
(3). In the 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC assessed the US incidence as follows: “In the United States, the number of new cancer cases is expected to reach 2.09 million annually from the 1.6 million reported in 2012. Cancer-related deaths are expected to climb from 617,229 in 2012 to 851,396 in 2025″
Website under construction
“It often happens that the universal belief of one age of mankind – a belief from which no one was, nor without an extraordinary effort of genius and courage, could at that time be free – becomes to a subsequent age so palpable an absurdity, that the only difficulty then is to imagine how such a thing can ever have appeared credible.” J.S. Mill, The Principles of Political Economy (1848)