Professor Georges Mathé confirmed to L'Express: “If I had a tumor, I would not go to a cancer center”

Professor Henri Joyeux, oncologist in Montpellier, has repeatedly declared that “it is gigantic financial interests that explain why the scientific truth is still too often hidden today:

“85% of chemotherapies are questionable, or even useless.”

This article was written by Sylvie Simon (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvie_Simon), a rigorous and courageous writer and journalist. She died on Friday November 8 at the age of 86. For several years, she has been combating preconceived ideas by exploring various areas of science, and devoting the majority of her activity to campaigning against disinformation in health and ecology, hot topics.

She has already published several essays on scandals (contaminated blood, mad cows, asbestos, growth hormones, vaccines, etc.).

Through numerous conferences, in France and abroad, she wishes to awaken the conscience asleep by media hype, and invites us to reflect, to be responsible for our decisions with perfect knowledge of the facts, and to completely revise our values ​​and our system of thinking…”
“Chemotherapy has been denigrated for years by a large number of oncologists, French and American and not the least, who have dared to express their doubts about the cures obtained by traditional methods.

Hardin B Jones, then professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, had already communicated to the press in 1956 the alarming results of a study on cancer that he had just conducted for twenty-three years with cancer patients and which led to the conclusion that untreated patients did not die much faster than those who received chemotherapy, quite the contrary.

“Patients who refused any treatment lived an average of twelve and a half years. Those who underwent surgery and other traditional treatments lived an average of only three years. » And Dr Jones also raised the question of the fabulous sums generated by the “CANCER USINESS”.

Dr. Jones' destabilizing conclusions have never been refuted. (Walter Last, The Ecologist, vol. 28, n°2, March-April 1998.)

On October 4, 1985, Professor G.eorges Mathé confirmed to L'Express: “There are more and more cancers because detection is much earlier, but we do not control them as well as we say. , despite chemotherapy which is mainly advocated by chemotherapists and by laboratories [what he called the “cancer-connection”], and for good reason: they make a living from it.If I had a tumor, I wouldn't go to a cancer center» (see Le Monde, May 4, 1988).

In turn, Dr. Martin Shapiro (uclahealth.org/martin-shapiro) wrote in an article “Chemotherapy: Perlimpinpin oil? »: “Some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that this treatment is useful, others are undoubtedly misled by the optimism of scientific publications on chemotherapy. Still others respond to economic stimulation. Practitioners can earn more by performing chemotherapy than by providing consolation and reassurance to dying patients and their families. » (see Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1987).

This opinion is widely shared by doctors E. Pommateau and M. d'Argent who believe that chemotherapy “is only a process of destroying malignant cells like surgery or radiotherapy. It does not resolve the capital problem of host reactions which should, in the last resort, be the only ones to seek to stop the cancerous outbreak” (Lessons in Practical Cancerology).

For his part, Professor Henri Joyeux (professeur-joyeux.com), oncologist in Montpellier, has declared on numerous occasions that“It is gigantic financial interests that explain why the scientific truth is still too often hidden today: 85% of chemotherapies are questionable, even useless”.

And for the progression of cases of cures, Dr Jean-Claude Salomon, research director at the CNRS, oncologist, estimates that the percentage of survival five years after the initial diagnosis has increased for the sole reason that we know make earlier diagnoses, but if it is not accompanied by a reduction in mortality, the increase in the five-year survival percentage is not an indicator of progress.

“Early diagnosis often only has the effect of extending the duration of the illness with its attendant anxiety.”

This contradicts many claims regarding so-called therapeutic advances. » (cf. Who decides about our health. The citizen facing the experts, Bernard Cassou and Michel Schiff, 1998)

Dr Salomon specifies that real cancers and tumors which would probably never have caused cancer are counted without distinction, which contributes to artificially increasing the percentage of “cured” cancers. This also obviously increases the number of “declared” cancers. Another fact confirmed by Dr. Thomas Dao (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dao), who was director of the department of breast surgery at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo from 1957 to 1988: "Despite the widespread use of chemotherapy , the breast cancer mortality rate has not changed over the past 70 years. »

As well as by John Cairns, Professor of microbiology at Harvard University, who published a review in Scientific American in 1985: "Apart from a few rare cancers, it is impossible to detect any improvement by chemotherapy in the mortality of the most important cancers. It has never been established that any cancer can be cured by chemotherapy. »

New confirmation from Dr. Albert Braverman, New York hematologist and oncologist, in the LANCET: “Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for practically all tumors, with an optimism not discouraged by almost inevitable failure […] no disseminated neoplasm, incurable in 1975 , is not curable today. » (cf. Cancerology in the 1990s, vol. 337, 1991, p.901).

As for Dr. Charles Moertal, a cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic, he admits that: “Our most effective protocols are full of risks and side effects; and after all the patients we have treated have paid this price, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of incomplete tumor regression. »

Alan Nixon, former President of the American Chemical Society, is even more radical: "As a chemist, trained to interpret publications, it is difficult for me to understand how doctors can ignore the evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good. »

Ralph Moss is a non-medical scientist who has been studying cancer for ages. He writes articles on the subject in prestigious journals, such as the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New Scientist, and has published a book:

“The Cancer Industry”: “Ultimately, there is no evidence that chemotherapy prolongs life in the majority of cases, and it is a big lie to assert that there is a correlation between the shrinkage of a tumor and the extension of the patient's life. » He admits that he once believed in chemotherapy, but that experience showed him his error: “Conventional cancer treatment is so toxic and inhumane that I fear it more than dying from cancer. We know this therapy doesn't work — if it worked you wouldn't fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. […]

However, most alternative treatments, regardless of evidence of their effectiveness, are prohibited, forcing patients to set themselves up for failure because they have no alternative.Dr. Maurice Fox, professor emeritus of biology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), found, like many of his peers, that cancer patients who refused medical care had a lower mortality rate than those who accepted it.

The McGill University Cancer Center in Canada (cusm.ca/cancer/dashboard) sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors specializing in lung cancer to determine the level of confidence they placed in the products that scientists at the university were in the process of evaluating. They were asked to imagine they had cancer and to say which drug they would choose from six others being tested.

There were 79 responses from doctors, of whom 64, or 81%, would not agree to participate in the trials of Cisplatin-based chemotherapy that they were testing and 58 other doctors among the same 79, or 73%. , considered that the tests in question were unacceptable, given the ineffectiveness of the products and their high degree of toxicity.

For his part, Dr Ulrich Abel (encognitive.com/node/4361), German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg-Mannheim Cancer Center, reviewed all documents published on chemotherapy by more than 350 medical centers around the world .

After analyzing thousands of publications over several years, he discovered thatthe overall success rate of chemotherapy across the world was “dismal”, only 3%, and that there is simply no scientific evidence indicating that chemotherapy could “significantly prolong the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers”.

He calls chemotherapy a "scientific wasteland" and claims that at least 80% of chemotherapy administered around the world is useless and akin to "the emperor's new clothes", while neither the doctor nor the patient do not want to give up chemotherapy. Dr. Abel concluded: “Many oncologists take for granted that chemotherapy prolongs the lives of patients. This is an opinion based on an illusion that is not supported by any clinical studies.” This study was never commented on by the mainstream media and was completely buried. We understand why.

In summary, chemotherapy is very toxic and cannot differentiate between healthy cells and cancerous cells.It gradually destroys the immune system which can no longer protect the human body from ordinary diseases. Some 67% of people who die during cancer treatment are due to opportunistic infections that are not fought off by the immune system.

The most recent and significant study was published by the journal Clinical Oncology (clinicaloncologyonline.net) and carried out by three famous Australian oncologists, Professor Graeme Morgan of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robyn Ward of the University of New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr Michael Barton, a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Liverpool Health Service in Sydney.

Their meticulous work is based on the analysis of the results of all the double-blind controlled studies carried out in Australia and the United States, concerning the 5-year survival attributed to chemotherapy in adults during the period from January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72,964 patients in Australia and 154,971 in the United States, all treated with chemotherapy. This vast study demonstrates that we can no longer pretend, as usual, that these are only a few patients, which allows the systems in place to dismiss them with contempt.The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of benefits, but despite this precaution, their publication proves that chemotherapy only contributes just over 2% to patient survival after 5 years, or 2.3% in Australia. , and 2.1% in the United States.“However, some practitioners remain optimistic and hope that cytotoxic chemotherapy [8] will prolong the lives of cancer patients,” the authors declared in their introduction. They rightly ask how it is that a therapy that has contributed so little to patient survival over the past 20 years continues to achieve such success in sales statistics. It is true that we can tell them that patients who are not very curious or simply distraught have no choice: we offer them nothing else.

Massoud Mirshahi, researcher at Pierre and Marie Curie University and his team discovered in 2009 that new cells in the tumor microenvironment would be involved in the resistance to chemotherapy of cancer cells and recurrences with the appearance of metastases.These cells have been called “Hospicells” because they serve as niches that have the property of fixing a large number of cancer cells and protecting them from the action of chemotherapy.

“Hospicells” come from the differentiation of bone marrow stem cells, and are present in effusions in patients with cancer (ascites fluid, pleural effusions). The cancer cells, clustered around a “Hospicell”, form real small cancerous nodules. Immuno-inflammatory cells were also identified in these nodules. Electron microscopy demonstrated that there were areas of fusion between the membranes of the “Hospicells” and those of the cancer cells, allowing the passage of material from one cell to another.

In addition, the researchers observed the transfer of membrane material from the “Hospicell” to the cancer cells, a phenomenon called trogocytosis. Several other mechanisms, such as the recruitment of suppressive immune cells or the secretion of soluble factors by “Hospicells” also help in the resistance of cancer cells against chemotherapy. Given this importance, it is suggested that cancer cells “nested” on a “Hospicell” could be considered responsible for the residual disease. For research, it is therefore important to find drugs capable of destroying both cancer cells and “Hospicells”.

The most significant study was published by the journal Clinical Oncology (clinicaloncologyonline.net) and carried out by three famous Australian oncologists, Professor Graeme Morgan of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Professor Robyn Ward of the University of New South Wales-St. Vincent's Hospital and Dr Michael Barton, a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Liverpool Health Service in Sydney.

Other studies have appeared recently: The first, published in the journal Nature, indicates that a large majority of studies on cancer are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent. Researchers are rarely able to replicate the results of large “reference” studies. Among 53 important studies on cancer, although published in high-level scientific journals, 47 could never be reproduced with similar results.

This is not new, since, in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center also published conclusions of famouscancer studies, all biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.

And it remains common knowledge that certain cancer drugs cause metastases.This long list of publications, all negative and not exhaustive as to the “benefits” of chemotherapy, could be explained by the work of certain researchers from Harvard Medical School in Boston (USA – meded.hms.harvard.edu), who found that two drugs used in chemotherapy cause the development of new tumors, and not the opposite! These are new drugs that block the blood vessels that “feed” the tumor. Specialists call them “anti-angiogenesis” treatments.

These drugs, Glivec and Sutent (active ingredients, imatinib and sunitinib), have a demonstrated effect in reducing the size of the tumor. However, they destroy small cells little studied until now, the pericytes, which keep the growth of the tumor under control. Freed from pericytes, the tumor finds it much easier to spread and “metastasize” to other organs.Harvard researchers now consider that, although the main tumor shrinks in size thanks to these drugs, the cancer also becomes much more dangerous for patients! (Cancer Cell, June 10, 2012).

Professor Raghu Kalluri, who published the results in the journal Cancer Cell, said: “If you only take into account the growth of the tumor, the results were good. But if you step back and look at the big picture, inhibiting the tumor's blood vessels does not contain the progression of the cancer. In fact, the cancer is spreading. »

The meticulous work of the three famous Australian oncologists (whose study is more surprising), is based on the analysis of the results of all the double-blind controlled studies carried out in Australia and the United States, concerning the 5-year survival credit for chemotherapy in adults during the period January 1990 to January 2004, a total of 72,964 patients in Australia and 154,971 in the United States, all treated by chemotherapy. This vast study demonstrates that we can no longer pretend, as usual, that these are only a few patients, which allows the systems in place to dismiss them with contempt.

The authors deliberately opted for an optimistic estimate of benefits, but despite this precaution, their publication proves that chemotherapy only contributes just over 2% to patient survival after 5 years, or 2.3% in Australia. , and 2.1% in the United States. Finally, a study published in the journal NATURE MEDICINE in 2012 could change the idea we have of chemotherapy.

Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle (fredhutch.org) have indeed discovered that it triggers the production of a protein in healthy cells that fuels tumors. While researchers were working on resistance to chemotherapy in cases of metastatic breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers,They discovered by chance that chemotherapy not only does not cure cancer, but rather activates the growth and spread of cancer cells.

Chemotherapy, the standard method of treating cancer today, causes healthy cells to release a protein that actually fuels cancer cells and makes them thrive and proliferate. According to the study, chemotherapy induces the release in healthy cells of a protein, WNT16B, which helps promote the survival and growth of cancer cells.

Chemotherapy also permanently damages the DNA of healthy cells, a long-term damage that persists long after chemo treatment ends.

“When the WNT16B protein is secreted, it would interact with nearby cancer cells and cause them to grow, spread, and most importantly, resist further therapy,” explained study co-author Peter Nelson of the Research Center. Fred Hutchinson on cancer in Seattle, regarding this totally unexpected discovery.

“Our results indicate that in benign cells feedback responses may directly contribute to tumor enlargement dynamics,” the entire team added on what they observed. Which is to say: Avoiding chemotherapy increases the chances of regaining health. How is it that a therapy that has contributed so little to patient survival over the past 20 years continues to achieve such success in sales statistics?It is true that patients who are not very curious or simply distraught have no choice: they are offered nothing other than “the protocol”.

How much pressure is today's oncologist under to choose the patient's treatment? In the past, the good doctor chose with his soul and conscience, according to the Hippocratic oath, the best treatment for his patient. He thus incurred personal responsibility after a prolonged interview with his patient. “Since the 1990s – and particularly in an increasingly authoritarian manner since the 2004 cancer plan –the oncologist's freedom to treat has disappeared in France and in certain Western countries.

Under the fallacious pretext of quality of care, all patient files are “discussed” in multidisciplinary meetings where, in fact, the current therapeutic trial testing new drugs is imposed by the “community”. The practitioner who wishes to deviate from this system must explain himself and incurs all possible problems, in particular that of seeing the service in which he participates lose its authorization to practice oncology. »

Dr Nicole Delépine (docteur.nicoledelepine.fr/) summarizes what can happen when we move away from strict protocols to adapt them to the personal situation of patients. Only 3 out of 4 doctors dare to refuse chemo for themselves, in the case of cancer, because of its ineffectiveness on the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human body. But this detail is well hidden from patients.

Doctor Jacques Lacaze, a graduate in oncology and ardent defender of Dr Gernez's work on the subject, believes that the only real solution is prevention: “In fact, cancer has a hidden life of 8 years on average. During this long period, the cancer embryo is very vulnerable, a little thing can derail it.

All specialists admit this reality, but very few of them advocate a prevention policy. However, it is easy to implement. We know that the cancer incidence curve starts around age 40, so future cancer sets in around age 32.

The SUVIMAX study showed that simple supplementation with vitamins and minerals was enough to reduce the incidence of cancer by around 30%. This study lasted 8 years. No public health policy consequences have been drawn from this. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to hear about it: you don't saw off the branch you're sitting on.

CHEMOTHERAPY….AND PHARMACEUTICAL CARTEL

The medical profession is under the control of “big bosses” who make rain and shine and who are handsomely paid by this industry (search on the internet, you will see that most of these big bosses emerge in one way or another). another to a laboratory). And the majority of basic doctors follow without flinching! And woe to those who think the opposite and who challenge chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotic therapy. […] I must add, because this corresponds to my practice and to real studies carried out by some specialized services, many products qualified as complementary or alternative are effective, but banned and pursued by the authorities at the orders of the pharmaceutical industry. »

We must not forget in this matter that only the pressure of the people concerned, that is to say all of us, will make this system bend.

Sources: mediapart.fr

Related Google searches: chemotherapy success rate, cancer cure without chemo, chemotherapy that kills, chemo does not cure cancer, can we refuse chemotherapy, chemotherapy for or against, refuse chemotherapy forum, chemotherapy that kills, chemo side effect how long, chemotherapy long term side effects, chemotherapy treatment, chemo without side effects, cancer chemo or not, after chemotherapy, chemo does not cure cancer, danger of chemotherapy, chemotherapy rate of success, cancer cure without chemo, is chemo effective, cancer chemo or not