I wanted to know the survival rates for lung cancer. This information is based on traditional doctors and conventional medical treatments for lung cancer. The problem that the physicians have with lung cancer is that the diagnosis is usually made when the patient is in the late stages (usually Stage 4). We can see exactly what a traditional physician has to say about cancer survival rates.
The physician is basically saying that only 25% of people diagnosed with lung cancer can be treated with surgery. In surgery, a lung or lobe of a lung is removed, and the lymph nodes are also removed if they are affected. This constitutes a ‘cure’ for about half of this 25% of patients. The other half of patients that have the surgery will experience a recurrence of cancer. So this means that about 12.5% of the patients who have lung cancer will survive for 5 years, since long-term survival is considered 5 years from diagnosis.
For the other 75% of lung cancer patients, most will receive chemotherapy and radiation. I already discussed the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation in a previous article, and they usually aren’t too pleasant. It’s really a ‘crap shoot’ regarding the severity of side effects that a patient will experience from these treatments. Of this 75%, approximately 1/10th of them (i.e., 7.5% of total lung cancer patients) are predicted to live 5 years.
The physician goes on to say that about 70% of the patients who are diagnosed will die of the lung cancer. Calculation of the figures given by the physician actually demonstrate that about only 20% (12.5% of surgery patients + 7.5% of the radiation-chemotherapy patients) of the lung cancer patients survive for 5 years after diagnosis. At the end of the video, the physician states that this is the best that that modern medicine has to offer.
I find that declaration totally unacceptable. I do not see the physicians acknowledging anything outside of chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. The video is really an admission of failure. I noticed that the physician was actually rather complacent with the current treatment methods. And this is alleged to be the culmination of 50+ years of research and investigation by the best, most qualified scientists in history. Either there is another objective that has a higher priority than curing cancer, the researchers are inept, they are committed to the wrong paradigm, or they are purposely hiding and obfuscating the truth about cancer. I have a difficult time believing that these researchers do not have the ability to figure out a way to effectively treat cancer without using poisonous, dangerous, expensive, marginally effective treatments.
Please tell me what you think in the Comments section!