Improved rate of cancer survival? Statistical manipulation?

Mainstream media report on this issue once in a while. Dutifully.

They never give it the coverage it deserves. They certainly don’t tackle it on an ongoing basis—as they should.

But behind the scenes, in the medical community, the issue has been debated for decades.

How real are claims of improved cancer survival rates?

Are the claims sheer PR? Are they just a way of promoting treatment?

Survival is typically defined as: living for at least five years after a cancer diagnosis.

And there’s the problem. Because “advances” in screening methods have led to…

Earlier diagnosis and detection of cancer.

It doesn’t take a flaming genius to figure out what this means.

“The patient is showing two very slowing-growing molecules of prostate cancer if it rains on Tuesday. Diagnose him.”

Then, naturally, the patient lives for five years. Boom. He’s a survivor.

So-called early detection automatically boosts cancer survival rates.

Worse, many cases of early detection will NEVER, if left alone, untreated, develop into symptoms and suffering during the patient’s lifetime.

Except, based on the early diagnosis, highly toxic treatment is imposed.

Imagine this. With advanced mammography, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. In truth, only a tiny number of cells show what is supposed to be cancer.

She and her physician have several conversations about treatment options. The physician refers to the case to the “most expert” doctors on staff at the hospital. They huddle and discuss the mammography and what it implies.

They relay the physician their conclusion. He meets with his patient and tells her (she’s been waiting anxiously for a week or two to get the verdict from on high) that, the best course of treatment…

In order to prevent the cancer spreading…

To ensure the greatest chance of success, is…

A double mastectomy.

“I had no idea…” the patient says.

“I know,” the doctor says. “But we want to take the safest course of action here.”

So the patient gives in.

The surgery is performed.

She goes on to live more than five years.

Boom. She’s a survivor.

But she would have survived anyway. With both breasts.

With no treatment whatsoever.

The doctors and the cancer establishment wrongly credit the surgery. Because they want to.

They say: