the statistics of traditional oncology

There is an international classification (the TNM system) that classifies tumors on the basis of their gravity. They are subdivided into stages I, II, III, IV, and into sub-groups.
It is clear to any trained eye that initial lesions that are doubtful or at the limit of malignancy represent the overwhelming majority of the observed “neoplasias”. It is equally clear how often these presumed neoplasias, which are often subject to both misunderstanding and manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility.
So, in the early stages of tumors (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages – that is, where they certainly are tumors – the rates are barely above zero.

The example of skin neo-formations, as they can be analyzed in a direct manner, may be useful in helping to understand such a contradictory system better.
It is self-evident that, of all the nodules that can be observed (malignant tumors, benign tumors, cysts, lymphomas, dermatitis, warts, small scars, and more) just a tiny proportion belongs to the category of neoplasias.

For the neo-formations of the internal organs – where it is not possible to directly see and check – it is legitimate instead to expect almost as a rule both error and deceit.

The statistical manipulation phenomenon we have described above becomes even more obvious in its complexity when the objects of the study are those malignant neoplasias that in themselves tend to have benign characteristics, such as, for example, those of the thyroid, other glands, or other organs that are well-structured.

Where distortions and misunderstanding are difficult to implement – as, for example, in parenchymal organs (lung, liver, or brain) – the recovery statistics instead report negligible values because the statistics are forced to show the truth.

CANCER AND SURVIVAL TO 5 YEARS

  • Malignant glomes (brain) < 10 %
  • Cervical-facial district < 5 %
  • Malignant melanomas < 20 %
  • Mastoid and ear neoplasias < 25 %
  • Lump 7.5 %
  • Pleural mesothelioma 0 %
  • Esophagus carcinoma < 10 %
  • Stomach carcinoma > 13 %
  • Small intestine neoplasias 25 %
  • Liver carcinoma 0-2 %
  • Gall bladder carcinoma < 3 %
  • Pancreas carcinoma 2 %
  • Breast carcinoma locally advanced 5 %

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, where does the famous fifty per cent recovery rate come from? From fraud! We must also highlight that the success of surgical removal of neo-formations under 1 cm are of little interest, as they never create a problem.
Conversely, if they wanted to demonstrate their effectiveness, the official oncological therapies should cure or at least achieve regression of the advanced neoplasias. But here, no doubt, the failure of classical oncology is complete.


Pin It on Pinterest