Cancer treatments are poor; 5-year survival rates manipulated, used to mislead, Joel Kauffman, PhD

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:56 am Email this article
"Oncologists and others pretend that they can cure 60% of cancers when nothing of the sort is true," writes Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, the author of Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year, and How to Protect Yourself. 5-Year Survival Rates Have Been Manipulated

5-Year Survival Rates Have Been Manipulated, Used to Mislead

“5-year survival rates [following cancer treatments] have been manipulated and used to mislead,” Kauffman also notes.

He also notes that mainstream treatment for cancer is “poor”, and “patients are [seriously] misled about its adverse effects [of cancer treatments].”

 

60% Success Rate Does NOT Mean 60% Were Cured

60% success rate following cancer treatment does NOT mean 60% were cured

Commenting on Kauffman’s book, Duane Graveline, MD writes:

“The use of the term cure rarely applies to a cancer survivor. The correct term for judging effectiveness of cancer control is the five-year survival rate, that fraction of patients alive after five years from diagnosis. When a cancer expert says current treatment has a 60% success rate, they mean 60% will still be alive after five years, but in many the cancerous cells still silently lurk” Graveline when referring to Kauffman’s book.

 

Claims of Increasing Cancer Rates Often Do NOT Adjust for Age

Alarmists claiming that rates of a specific cancer are increasing often do NOT adjust for age

“Kauffman points [out] other pitfalls of false claims and misleading cancer survival information when alarmists talk of increasing cancer deaths from a specific type of cancer without age adjustment.

“As the population ages, so must the specific deaths, yet when corrected for age these apparent epidemics become usual and customary trends.

“To one unfamiliar with the twists and turns of bio-statistics, it is easy to be confused. We desperately need reviewers such as Kauffman who are thoroughly trained in statistics and epidemiology to lead us by the hand as we try to absorb the immense amount of, at times, conflicting data on this subject.”

 

Mammography’s Effect of Death from Breast Cancer

Mammography reduces death from breast cancer by 20%, but this may be due to the low-dose radiation

And it only reduce the risk of death from breast cancer by 20% at best Kauffman also notes.

This small reduction in breast cancer deaths may be due to the beneficial effects of the low-dose X-Rays used in mammography in the past Kauffman also notes.

Comment: See his comment about the beneficial effects of low-dose background radiation here.

“Other imaging methods have their advantages, especially when breast cancer is detected initially some other way, which can be by means of palpation or a simple AMAS test on a blood sample.

“The case is made that treatment of breast cancer does not change the all-cause death rate and may change the cause of death to heart failure or something else other than cancer,” Kauffman finishes.

 

Kauffman’s Journey Began in 1999

In 1999, Kauffman’s started researching the truth about aspirin

Kauffman notes that:

“Beginning in 1999 the conflict between recommendations on long-term use of aspirin to prevent heart attacks was so striking that I dug into the medical journals to find out the truth about aspirin.

“The result became Myth One in my book Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year, and How to Protect Yourself.

 

Until 1990, Kauffman Believed the Medical Literature and Diet Advice

Until 1990, Kauffman believed the medical literature and diet advice, believing that most medical and diet advice was reliable

Early, Kaufmann noted that:

“Until about 1990, like most people, Kauffman believed that most medical and diet advice was reliable, especially from government agencies we pay so much to take care of us.

 

Until 1990, Kauffman Took a Baby Aspirin, Had is Cholesterol Measured, Etc

Until 1990, Kauffman took a baby aspirin, had is cholesterol measured, drank fluoridated water, etc, believing that medical journal articles were honest and complete

“He took baby aspirin, ate trans fat, drank fluoridated water and had his cholesterol measured in the belief that others were looking out for us by basing their recommendations on the best evidence from trials.

“When medical brochures and advertisements referred to papers in peer-reviewed medical journals, I assumed that these papers were honest and complete, based on my own experience as the author of 80 journal papers myself, which were subject to rigorous peer review.

 

Medical Abstracts Often Incomplete and Misleading

Kauffman found that medical abstracts were often incomplete and misleading, often leaving out all-cause mortality and side-effects

Kauffman goes on to say:

“Determined to understand medical papers, Kauffman struggled with jargon and slowly caught onto the tricks of the trade, such as incomplete and misleading abstracts.

“The abstract of a paper is supposed to summarize the purpose, choice of subjects, trial protocol, and results.

 

When Abstracts Are Incomplete, This Information is Left Out of Media Stories

When abstracts do not mention all-cause mortality and side-effects, the media never does not include this in their coverage

“When key results are left out of the abstract, such as all-cause mortality and side-effects, they remain left out of any press release, newspaper article and sales literature.

 

When The Whole Paper Is Examined, Shocking Cover Ups Come To Light

When the whole paper is examined, shocking cover ups come to light such as excess cancer deaths

He continues, saying:

“When the whole paper is examined, shocking cover ups come to light, in many cases, such as excess cancer deaths even when some easily measurable stuff, like cholesterol, is lowered, which is supposed to be a benefit, but is not.

“People who would most benefit from a diet intervention are often excluded from the chosen subjects.

 

High Dropout Rates Often Left Out of Abstracts

Very high dropout rates due to drug side-effects usually left out of abstracts

“Very high dropout rates because of treatment side-effects usually do not find their way to the abstract.

 

Article

This myth his from an article by Kauffman

This medical myth is from an article by Joel Kauffman posted on the very interesting website SpaceDoc.com in an article titled Malignant Medical Myths in which he briefly describes the eleven (11) medical myths he writes about in his book.

 

Other Kauffman articles

Other Kauffman articles are posted here

Other articles by Joel Kauffman, PhD are posted here:

• Typical background radiation is not only harmless, but actually beneficial notes Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• EDTA chelation retards or reverses atherosclerosis notes Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• Extreme exercise can cause heart failure and other injuries notes Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• No proof that red wine reduces the risk of death notes Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• Low cholesterol levels are dangerous, high ones usually are not, Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• Advice to eat diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol are not based on science, Joel Kaufmann PhD
• Daily aspirin does not reduce mortality in men, and increases mortality in women, Joel Kaufmann, PhD
• Statins INCREASE the risk of dying by 1% over 10 years

AUTHOR’S CORRESPONDENCE

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD
Professor of Chemistry Emeritus
University of the Sciences of Philadelphia
65 Meadowbrook Rd
Wayne, PA 19087-2510 USA
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
(215) 596-8839 phone

 

About Kauffmann

About Joel Kauffman, PhD

Joel Kauffman, PhD is Professor of Chemistry Emeritus from the University of the Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 

Articles on the same subject can be found here:

• Book - Malignant Medical Myths

• Cancer

• Cancer treatments

• Doctor - Joel Kauffman, PhD (author of Malignant Medical Myths)

• Myths, Medical Myths