Chemotherapy vs Cancer: The Cold Truth You Must Know

Can I ask you something – does the name Peter Glidden rings any bell?! Peter Glidden is a famous naturopath, who describes himself as follows:

“I am an outspoken, steadfast stand for the health of people worldwide. I am an unruffled, proud pioneer of holistic naturopathic medicine, delivering the touch-stone message, so very necessary in this time of unparalleled human suffering, of health recovery through science based, clinically verified holistic medicine to anyone with the ears to hear it.”

We can also call this amazing doctor a superhero – for speaking out. In a recent interview, Dr. Glidden talks about the business of medicine, beginning with reference to a 12-year meta-analysis of chemotherapy treatment published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology that determined that 97% of the time, chemo does not work.

Hardin Jones was a former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley. He studied cancer for well over twenty years and came to this conclusion:

“My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12 1/2 years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years! Beyond a shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the real and ugly truth is that the conventional chemotherapy treatment does not work! YES, it doesn’t work and it makes people sicker and can actually cause other serious illness—including other cancer. The cancer studies you don’t hear about are those that show time and again that chemotherapy doesn’t work.

Another meta-analysis published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology entitled “Twenty-two years of phase III trials for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: sobering results” concluded:

“Analysis of past trials in North America shows that the prolongation in median survival between two arms of a randomized study was rarely in excess of 2 months.”

The summary of a 1992 study published in Biomed & Pharmacother by Dr. Ulrich Abel of the Institut für Epidemiologic und Biometrie in Heidelberg, Germany reads:

“This article is a short version of a report which presents a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials and publications examining the value of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced epithelial cancer…Apart from lung cancer, in particular small-cell lung cancer, there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced carcinoma. Except for ovarian cancer, available indirect evidence rather supports the absence of a positive effect.[emphasis added] In treatment of lung cancer and ovarian cancer, the therapeutical benefit is at best rather small, and a less aggressive treatment seems to be at least as effective as the usual one.”

A 2011 Belgian study on the long-term effects of chemotherapy on breast cancer found:

“…there is insufficient information regarding the long-term sequelae of most chemotherapeutic agents. In this review, we describe different potential long-term adverse events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer, with a particular focus on long-term cardiac toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive function, and neurotoxicity…In addition, we discuss the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on fertility and sexual function of young breast cancer patients…The fact that adjuvant chemotherapy is often given to patients who might not really need it[emphasis added] urges us to consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits to maximize benefit without compromising quality of life.”

The MILLION-DOLLAR question – why chemotherapy is the chosen mode of cancer treatment if it doesn’t work? Dr. Glidden explains – when a doctor prescribes chemotherapy, s/he pays $5,000 to the drug company for the supplies and charges the patient $12,000. The insurance company reimburses $9,000. The doctor pockets the difference. Yes, it’s all about money. Healthcare spending in the United States far exceeds that of other First World nations, yet its citizens are no healthier—on the contrary. The spending isn’t on doctor visits and hospital admissions but from the use of medical technologies and pharmaceuticals; in addition, the per-use cost of most medical resources is higher than in most other countries.