This Doctor’s 25 Years of Research Showed: Cancer Patients Live 4X Longer by Refusing Chemotherapy

I am always suspicious of many types of modern medicine and if the information provided below is correct i certainly have good reason to be so. I have seen people on chemo and it really does put the body through it paces but could our medicine sometimes be doing more harm than good.

Dr. Hardin B. Jones, a former Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, concluded after over 25 years of research not only that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery do not work and do not prolong a cancer patient’s life, but patients receiving these types of oncological treatments in many cases die much sooner than those who choose to be untreated. Treated patients also die a much more painful death.

“People who refused chemotherapy treatment live an average of 12 and a half years longer than the people who are receiving chemotherapy,” wrote Dr. Jones in the journal of New York Academy of Sciences.

althealthworks.com...

Happy Days

Purple...

a reply to: purplemer

That's frightening.

The scariest thing to me is that the "medical mafia" does this with TONS of "treatments", that are actually completely toxic and hazardous.

WHILE they make a fortune.

The ones who know must have no souls - the ones who don't are likely being willfully ignorant or are just completely programmed - like walking drones...


To all of the evil docs out there (there are PLENTY of great ones, but we all know there are plenty of sicko ones too):

I have seem the effects of chemo, it's not pretty.
My mom fought with chemo for ten years and withered away.
my dad fought with no treatment and lasted 4 good years.
Believe me the 4 good were better than 10 bad.

Chemo has helped this patient stay alive for a long time. It didn't help last time, but after 13 years you can't expect miricles

a reply to: purplemer

Amazing information. Thanks for sharing - this is the sort of thing that has actually influenced the way I would act personally were I to be diagnosed with cancer. I too am aware of people who have suffered greatly through chemotherapy, and am now heading towards being a firm believer in refusing such, if it is likely to cause too much suffering & pain, perhaps even shortening life itself & worsening the type of death one experiences. Worthy of much further research & consideration...

a reply to: purplemer

Chemo is keeping my old man alive and also killing cancer in my mum's brain.

Sorry, I don't buy into this stuff. What do you alternative promoters want my parents to do? Sit at home eating acai berries, smoking weed and refusing chemo?

I understand there is a big pharma conspiracy that is 100% true - but on this part I'll listen to the experts using research from the last decade rather than 1950.

In 1969 he presented his research at the American Cancer Society’s Science Writers’ Seminar, and the unbelievable findings still send shockwaves through the cancer industry to this day.

althealthworks.com...

1969? Really? You think that nothing has changed in the past 46 years? And, no, his findings are not sending shockwaves through medicine today.

BTW, I don't suppose you have a link to his study, do you? I'd be interested in reading what it actually said.

originally posted by: and14263
I understand there is a big pharma conspiracy that is 100% true - but on this part I'll listen to the experts using research from the last decade rather than 1950.

This is the big thing I notice in some of these studies is that they use old data. I'm not saying that the old data is bad or inaccurate in instances like this, but things do tend to change in over half of a decade in how a treatment is administered.

But to be fair, I distrust modern studies and information more than I distrust those who use old data. This is why not trusting one point of view is the road I generally travel...well, at the very least, trust but verify, which means looking at oppositional data and methods used to gather data on both sides (and, of course, who funded the research).

Apologies as I haven't read the article;

Does it say what the ratio of alive to dead using chemo vs not using chemo? 4 years living longer is a good statistic, but if the ratio of alive after the 4 years is higher in the people using chemo, wouldn't that be considered more effective?

a reply to: purplemer

After seeing what my sister-in-law went through, I definitely feel Chemotherapy shortens some cancer patients lives. She was bedridden for 5 months after her last Chemotherapy treatment and than passed away. The doctor even told her straight out, Chemotherapy can sometimes kill patients. He left it up to her to decide if she wanted the last dosage of Chemo. She chose to have it and went down hill from there. The last chemo treatment was a much stronger dose.

Hopefully, some of the new research being done on destroying cancer cells will take the place of chemotherapy. Chemo not only helps kill cancer cells it also destroys healthy cells.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This is the big thing I notice in some of these studies is that they use old data. I'm not saying that the old data is bad or inaccurate in instances like this, but things do tend to change in over half of a decade in how a treatment is administered.

It's not old data. It's an old study.

a reply to: superman2012

Does it say what the ratio of alive to dead using chemo vs not using chemo? 4 years living longer is a good statistic, but if the ratio of alive after the 4 years is higher in the people using chemo, wouldn't that be considered more effective?

No. No link to the original 1969 study has been provided. Like you, I would be interested in seeing the study instead of having to read what someone says about.

Oh yeah. Chemotherapy extended my life pretty well. 28 years and counting.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think i got it wrong anyway... I think chemo is on her body but doesn't work on the brain so it's radio too (?). I still distrust this. But maybe that's due to my disposition.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But to be fair, I distrust modern studies and information more than I distrust those who use old data.

Yes thats the problem i have its hard to get any good information because most modern data is coked by corporatism.

I posted this up to see what people think about it. I like to learn and often times its difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff..

a reply to: purplemer

Being suspicious could save your life. First things first...

I recently had a friend die of chemo radiation. She had bone marrow cancer. It went away for around 5 years and came back stronger. She decided to do more chemo. Had a couple of treatments and the doctors warned her that too much is not good. She decided to have one more to make sure the cancer was gone. It ended up killing her. It was very sad to see, i've heard about it happening but when its someone you know its really makes you think.

Many of us have been saved by chemo and radiation.

Modern cancer treatments = the dark ages of medicine...

Conventional cancer treatments are nothing but fraud and mythology.

Nearly everything that conventional medicine is telling you is fiction.

75% of doctors said they would not undergo chemo if diagnosed with cancer.

blog.listentoyourgut.com...

Will oncologists submit to chemotherapy if they are diagnosed? Well, in 1986, McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 64 oncologists to see how they would personally respond to a diagnosis of cancer. The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 64 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that... ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs dont work and are toxic to ones system! That's right, 91% of oncologists will not take chemo!! Ty Bollinger Interview

Their “solution” to cancer lies with three risky and highly invasive procedures: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. The alarming rates of cancer deaths across the world -- cancer has a mortality rate of 90 percent, according to Italian oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini -- speak volumes about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of these treatments, yet they are still regarded as the gold standard of cancer care.

Undoubtedly, many people turn to conventional treatments like chemotherapy because they think they are the ONLY option. But perhaps people would feel differently if they knew that a full 75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects.

You may be surprised to learn that, despite its reputation as the go-to cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004

Chemotherapy is a classic example of a cure that is worse than the disease. In fact, many experts now say that cancer patients are more likely to die from cancer treatments than the cancer itself.

“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors,” said Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer.

articles.mercola.com...

91% of the oncologists surveyed would not submit themselves to the same protocols that they prescribe to their patients! Is it just me, or does this seem hypocritical to you? I believe that this is not only hypocritical, but it borders on being criminal! They know that chemo will kill more patients than it will help, but they continue to tell their patients that it is their "best treatment option." What a damnable lie!

www.cancertruth.info...

“Ty, isn't chemotherapy a proven scientific treatment?”

The answer is YES, it is! It has been scientifically proven to fatally poison several hundred thousand people each and every year. Did you know that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with the chemotherapy is a paltry 3%? In other words . . . “Chemo has a 97% fatality rate”...

The sad fact is that chemo is not only legal, but it is readily accepted by most oncologists as one of the best treatments for cancer. At least that's what the typical oncologist tells the cancer patient....

But in 1986, McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 64 oncologists to see how they would personally respond to a diagnosis of cancer. The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 64 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that...

“ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs don’t work and are toxic!”

www.cancertruth.info...

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the [approved] statistical information necessary to prove that alternative treatments are far better than chemotherapy. That is one of the many reasons the FDA was created. The FDA only "accepts" studies done by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that are controlled by Big Pharma. Everyone else is ignored.

The end result of all of this is that you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer! Let me say that again: you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer.

www.mnwelldir.org...

In fact, on average, only 3% of ALL people that ever get diagnosed with cancer live! Yes, 3%. 97% DIE! With all the radiation, chemotherapy, drugs, and technology just 3%!

An Important Fact To Remember…
Pharmaceutical companies only conduct studies on patented chemicals they invent so that at the end of their study, if the drug gets approved, they have sole rights on its sale. They NEVER do studies on foods that can't be patented and that can be bought in any supermarket or grown in your back yard.

The FDA is the same way; they DO NOT evaluate or approve natural products... The reason there is no official "scientific evidence" for alternative cancer treatments and cancer prevention treatments is that they are not highly profitable to Big Pharma. It is impossible, by law, for a substance to be considered to have “scientific evidence” unless Big Pharma submits it to the FDA, and they will only submit things that are very, very profitable to them.

www.naturalcure4cancer.com...

If you or someone near and dear to you is diagnosed with cancer, it is in your best interest to consider a second opinion away from the cancer industry's mainstream. Oncologists will insist and even demand your immediate acceptance of surgery. This is because they know that anyone hearing other options would never willingly submit to their expensive and horrendously toxic treatments that in most cases ruin health and shorten life.

Consider this statement written by the past president of the American Chemical Society, Alan C. Nixon: "It is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."

Webster Kehr, the cancer tutor, advises that your chances for complete recovery from cancer are 90% if you start with alternative approaches, but only 50% if you start with mainstream therapies first and then switch over out of desperation. Of course, mainstream medicine preaches the opposite.

The Cancer Industry: Failure, Lies, and Big Profits

originally posted by: Phage

In 1969 he presented his research at the American Cancer Society’s Science Writers’ Seminar, and the unbelievable findings still send shockwaves through the cancer industry to this day.

althealthworks.com...

1969? Really? You think that nothing has changed in the past 46 years? And, no, his findings are not sending shockwaves through medicine today.

BTW, I don't suppose you have a link to his study, do you? I'd be interested in reading what it actually said.

In the article is a link to a listing of all his published work.

pdf.oac.cdlib.org...

From the OP's referenced article:

According to a major study conducted by the Department of Radiation Oncology at Northern Sydney Cancer Centre and published in the December 2004 issue of Clinical Oncology, chemotherapy’s real impact on the survival of American adults is a mere 2.1%, and that’s only for up to five years, not a “true survival rate.” - See more at: althealthworks.com...

althealthworks.com...

My personal observations with cancer treatment in friends and family bears out the OPs observation. I've had only one friend (out of about 25 treated for cancer) come back in full health after treatment and she only choice to be treated initially with surgery and then Iscador and she has lived 10 years cancer free without debilitation. No - make that two - in the 1960's my uncle had bladder cancer which he treated only with high dose intravenous vitamin C and he lived another 30 years.

I've see many 'survive' their treatment only to have permanent side effects that degrade their quality of life. I've seen others not survive treatment. My father died from treatment (which caused a stroke) but the death certificate said cancer.

Right now my sister is fighting a rare-ish form of lung cancer. She was told her health was too fragile to undergo surgery and remove the well contained tumor. They when on to declare her healthy enough to suffer through 3 months of chemo and radiation. I don't think she will survive. This is a type of cancer that people can live with for 20 or more years without any specific treatment - my sister is 73 years old. Her choice and as she worked in mainstream medical for all her life she believes the 'company line'.

I really think people should have all the information for and against and have choices. In our 'for profit' medical arena a lot of people can only afford what their insurance will pay for and really have no choice in treatment modalities.

Those in control of Medical 'science' are interested in one thing and one thing ONLY...

Population reduction AKA depopulation...

Dr. Mendelsohn, one of the greatest MD's to ever live, would always say: NEVER trust a Doctor, (unless he has awakened to the lies of the medical inquisition).

There's no more dangerous activity than walking into a (witch) doctor's office...

Modern Medicine’s treatments for disease are more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to treat.

"The medical industry is no longer to be trusted. We have a Medical Inquisition. The Rockefellers took it over way back and warped a lot of it. Our doctors are brainwashed. The Rockefellers are dedicated to population reduction and are using the medical industry to do it."

Confessions of a Medical Heretic

"The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests." The Medical Mafia

"In the Church of Modern Medicine, no one is excluded from the sacrifice. There's plenty to be afraid of. The God that resides in the Temple of Modern Medicine is Death. The doctors are priests, the birth certificate is the baptismal certificate, toxic silver nitrate applied to the eyes at birth is baptism, the nurses are inquisitors, etc. Research is the prayer of the religion of Modern Medicine."

“I do not believe in Modern Medicine. I am a medical heretic. I believe that Modern Medicine’s treatments for disease . . . are more dangerous than the diseases they are designed to treat. I believe that more than ninety percent of Modern Medicine could disappear from the face of the earth – doctors, hospitals, drugs, and equipment – and the effect on our health would be immediate and beneficial . .

"Confessions of a Medical Heretic" Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, (pp. ix-xi-xv) Source
Medicine has become a religion
Dr. Mendelsohn - Search

"Modern Medicine can't survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It's a religion. Your doctor will retreat into the fact that you have no way of knowing or understanding all the [18] wonders he has at his command. Just trust me. You've just had your first lesson in medical heresy. Lesson Number Two is that if a doctor ever wants to do something to you that you're afraid of and you ask why enough times until he says Just Trust Me, what you're to do is turn around and put as much distance between you and him as you can, as fast as your condition will allow. Unfortunately, very few people do that. They submit. They allow their fear of the witch doctor's mask, the unknown spirit behind it, and the mystery of what is happening and of what will happen to change into respectful awe of the whole show.

But you don't have to let the witch doctor have his way. You can liberate yourself from Modern Medicine -- and it doesn't mean you'll have to take chances with your health. In fact, you'll be taking less of a chance with your health, because there's no more dangerous activity than walking into a doctor's office, clinic or hospital unprepared.

Once you understand Modern Medicine as a religion, you can fight it and defend yourself much more effectively than when you think you're fighting an art or a science. Of course, the Church of Modern Medicine never calls itself a church. You'll never see a medical building dedicated to the religion of medicine, always the medical arts, or medical science.Modern Medicine relies on faith to survive. All religions do. If Modern Medicine had to validate its procedures objectively, this book wouldn't be necessary. That's why I'm going to demonstrate how Modern Medicine is not a church you want to have faith in."

Confessions of a Medical Heretic