The real odds for cancer survival

Everyone knows that cancer is an inexorable disease that gives no chance to those who are affected. Every one of us is aware that when an acquaintance, a relative or a friend gets sick with this terrible disease, his or her chances of survival are very slim, and only a miracle can save them! Conversely, official statistics show percentages that are very encouraging and report an average recovery rate of about 50 per cent; that means that one person out of every two is saved. On one hand, therefore, we see high mortality statistics coming from the real world; on the other, we see percentages that are somewhat reassuring and stemming from “scientific analyses”.

How did we get to such a contradiction? What are the motives and the causes that, at this point just feed a feeling of resignation among citizens? I believe that the distorting elements can be divided into three categories: those that are related to the individual researcher, those where data are elaborated in a subjective manner, and those which are simply accepted in an uncritical manner. To the first category belong:

1        Conformity

A mental behaviour that tends to take for granted what is proposed by other researchers.

2        Complacency

This behaviour most of the time is stimulated by the actual conditions in which the researcher finds himself: for example, the structure where he operates, economic compensations, and so on.

The information acquired is consciously or unconsciously interpreted according to the way the research has been set up, that is, in a preconceived cognitive disposition.

3        Bad faith

A self-serving behaviour in which people who are aware that a notion is false pass it on nonetheless.

4        Fraud

Where the data are consciously falsified.

5        Fear

This can take various forms: fear of mistakes, fear of causing damage, fear of being reported to authorities, of looking bad, and more. (32a)

To the second category belong the elements of distortion. These elements are represented by those conditions of the researcher attributable to his mental structure and mental formation. In this case, one can talk about thoughtlessness.

6        Lack of preparation

This is the case when a researcher who is very good in his specific field of research lacks sufficient knowledge of other scientific arguments that are related to his studies. (32b)

7        Lack of reason

This occurs when data are accepted which are actually not acceptable. For example, the statistical data on bladder carcinoma report a survival rate ranging from 13-45 per cent. (32c)

8        Lack of attention

Here the conditions are similar to those of the preceding point. In this case, however, the results and the wacky data normally furnished by oncological studies are neither identified nor focussed on because the scholars – busy in other affairs (political, institutional, managerial or other) – actually have no stimulation or interest to really understand in-depth what they are studying.

9        Lack of energy

Unfortunately, we are all immersed in a world with too fast a pace, where we need to act frantically to keep in step with it. If to this we add that medicine is a very complex and compelling discipline, one can easily understand how doctors and academics are subjected to workloads and mental stresses that are extremely high. (32d)

To the third category belong all those factors that condition a doctor or a research scholar, generally without his awareness.

10    Passive acceptance of dominating ideas and ideologies

Some examples should suffice: knowledge always acts gradually; experimentation is the only appropriate instrument for medical progress; neoplastic disease has multifactorial origin.

11    Passive acceptance of ideas and theories from eminent scholars

One of the most common human mistakes is that of believing that the ideas and the opinions of doctors and scientists that are in eminent positions are more valid than the opinions of others. So, for example, when a Nobel Prize winner, a doctor who is a former government minister, a full university professor – or even the man on the street who ends up being on television – comments on important themes such as the state of medical research, the developments of anti-cancer therapies or something else, we tend to accept what is said in an uncritical manner, as if what we hear were some kind of divine word. (32e)

12    Reverence towards the great researchers of the past

This attitude tends to overestimate the great figures of history and to accept their theories – although the evolution of thought demonstrates that most of the time they are false and/or belong only to the history of ideas. (32f)

13    Passive acceptance of studies that are planned on a world scale (32g)

The elements of distortion that we have examined induce scientists to often commit gross errors in judgement – and these errors get amplified each time they pass from researcher to researcher.

This is particularly true in oncology, where, because of the absence of a rational principle and thread, the exact opposite of what is officially said takes place. Officially, on one hand, we hear of the constant achievement of positive results; at the same time, on the other hand, we hear of the constant increment of cancer deaths. On one hand, doctors, scholars and scientists parade their confidence while on the other, we see people who are desperate before the inexorable spread of the disease.

How can such antithetic realities coexist?

It is clear that the people who suffer and continue to die have the right to a cure. Everything else just sounds like jackasses braying, reverberating more loudly as it accompanied by conceited authority.

And scholars, scientists, ministers, professional orders, scientific journals, journalists, and educational broadcasting: what’s their role? Is it possible that they lie? Worse. They create a junk information network where, except for a few exceptions, most are in bad faith and the rest are conformists complete with degrees and exploited for the sole purpose of servitude to economic interests.

At this point we should ask ourselves: are the statistics and scientific facts that are so freely tossed around true or the products of imagination? Granted that they already contain, as we hoped to have demonstrated, remarkable elements of distortion, it seems useful to explore these statistics much more closely and to analyse the data that are officially reported.

Here comes the surprise. Even with all the tricks and distortion of statistics, in classic books and treatises a rate of cancer recovery gravitating around seven per cent is reported.  This means that, after the necessary corrections, the rate turns out to be about zero, as shown in table 1 below.

Table 1. Survival rates for some important neoplasias (32i)
(the sign “<” means “smaller than”)

What is it then that allows the scholars to package those statistical tables that are so captivating and reassuring – and that keep on conning public opinion? The trick is possible if you work in that no-man’s land that separates real tumours from those diseases that are not tumours.

Let us explain this better.

There is an international classification (the TNM system) that classifies tumours on the basis of their gravity. They are subdivided into stages I, II, III, IV, and into sub-groups. (32h)

It is clear to any trained eye that initial lesions that are doubtful or at the limit of malignancy represent the overwhelming majority of the observed “neoplasias”. It is equally clear how often these presumed neoplasias, which are often subject to both misunderstanding and manipulation, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility. So, in the early stages of tumours (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages – that is, where they are certainly tumours – the rates are barely above zero.

To better understand such a contradictory system, it may be useful to bring the example of skin neo-formations, as they can be analysed in a direct manner. It is self-evident that, of all the nodules that can be observed (malignant tumours, benign tumours, cysts, lymphomas, dermatitis, warts, small scars, and more) just a tiny proportion belongs to the category of neoplasias.

For the neo-formations of the internal organs, instead – where it is not possible to directly see and check – it is legitimate to expect almost as a rule both error and deceit.

The statistical manipulation phenomenon we have described above becomes even more obvious in its complexity when the objects of the study are those malignant neoplasias that in themselves tend to have benign characteristics, such as, for example, those of the thyroid, other glands, or other organs that are well-structured.

Where, instead, distortions and misunderstanding are difficult to implement – as, for example, in parenchymal organs (lung, liver, or brain), the recovery statistics – forced to show the truth – report negligible values.

To close, where does the famous fifty per cent recovery rate come from? From fraud! We must also highlight that the success of surgical removal of neo-formations under 1 cm are of little interest, as they never create a problem. Conversely, if they wanted to demonstrate their effectiveness, the official oncological therapies should cure or at least obtain regression of the advanced neoplasias. But here, no doubt, the failure of classical oncology is complete.