HOW SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?
传统的癌症治疗方法有多科学？ Walter Last著，发表于Nexus Magazine，2004年
Treatment often causes more misery than the disease itself and in most cases is unsuccessful (THE CANCER CONSPIRACY by John J. Moelaert)
相比疾病本身，癌症治疗往往造成更多的痛苦，大部分情况下都是不成功的。
The medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research that underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with cancer faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start immediately on a scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery, chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock, most individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of medical authority.
医疗职业以通过严格的科学研究巩固癌症治疗的方法为傲。有些人却面临着来自我们保健系统的巨大压力，因为他们被确诊为癌症后立即开始了包括手术、化疗、放疗等组合手段在内的科学医疗程序。无论是感到震惊还是恐惧，在这种情况下大部分人都会顺从于具有压倒性力量的医学权威。
How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural therapies for simple health problems but for something as serious as cancer you may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care. Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer treatment.
这种情况下你会怎么反应？当你遇到简单的健康问题时，你可能去学习一些自然的治疗方法，但当你面对像癌症这样的严重的疾病时，可能你会觉得接收那些被测试和检验过的传统治疗方法更安全。尽管如此，如果在你做出最终决定前能读完本文的以下内容，也许你会更欣赏自然的癌症疗法。
In this article I have assembled some little known facts about the science behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success (expressed as a five-year survival rate) is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients, and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is inherently unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.
在这篇文章里我会集中介绍一些已知的，隐藏在传统癌症疗法背后的科学事实。在癌症研究领域，成功（用五年存活率来表示）由比较手术后采用组合治疗法和采用其它形式疗法的结果来确认。然而，手术的成功率很少拿来与未经过治疗的癌症病人的存活率比较，而且从来不与经过自然疗法的癌症病人比较。因此，传统的癌症治疗法具有其天然的不科学性。所有假设的治愈率并不比自然痊愈的和使用安慰剂起效的能统计到的高。
In support of my position I offer the following key statements and conclusions from medical and scientific publications.
为了支持我的观点，我将在下文引用一些来自医学和科学出版物的关键陈述和结论。
“Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not become cancerous if left untouched.” In other words, early intervention appears helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but they are counted as being cancer, and that improves survival statistics. “Also, it does not matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the same “(1). This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival chances; otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and lumpectomy.
“研究似乎表明，早期的干预是有帮助的，因为如果不去碰它，癌症前期病变通常最后都不会癌化，这是算做早期被治好的癌症里。”换句话说，早期的干预似乎是有帮助的，因为一些不是癌症的却被算作癌症的病变被治好了，这就提高了存活率统计数据。“而且，有多少或多小的乳腺被切除也是没有关系的，最终的结果是一样的。”（1）这些陈述表明了手术并没有改变癌症病人存活机率，否则根治性手术和乳腺肿瘤切除术就将有所区别了。
Researchers said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure (2). Furthermore, there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this then they would most likely refuse surgery (3).
研究人员说，至少70%患有乳腺癌的女性遭受着徒劳的伤害过程（2）。此外，并没有证据表明早期的乳腺切除术能提高存活率。如果病人知道这些的话他们可能更愿意拒绝手术治疗。
In 1993 the editor of The Lancet pointed out that despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He acknowledges that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his words, not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time he rejects those who now believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. Instead, he continues, “would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?” Not too soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say. The title of this editorial, appropriately, is Breast cancer: have we lost our way?(4).
1993年，《柳叶刀》的编辑指出，尽管乳腺癌治疗方法在不断的修改，但死亡率并没有任何改变。他承认，虽然每周都会发布奇迹性的突破进展，但拥有超级自欺能力（他的原话，不是我的）的医疗专业实际上已经迷失了方向。同时，他反对那些目前还相信手术后接受化疗可以治愈癌症的人，这种方法的治愈率低于方法本身杀死病人的比例。“这么问是否更科学，为什么我们的方法会失败？”他进一步说到。我想说的是，在残害了女性近一个世纪后，提出这样的问题一点也不嫌早。这篇文章的标题是：乳腺癌：我们是否迷失了方向？《is Breast cancer: have we lost our way?》（4）
Basically all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, M.D., a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to the accelerated spread of cancer, which it does by forming metastases in other parts of the body (5).
基本上，所有类型的传统乳腺癌治疗方法组合似乎都只有一个结果，就是较低的长期存活率。我们从中所能得出的唯一结论就是传统的治疗方法并没有提高长期存活率。甚至更糟的是，英国乳腺癌外科医生领头人，医学博士迈克.鲍姆发现，乳腺癌手术常常会增加三年内复发或死亡的风险。他也指出外科手术会加速癌症扩散，癌细胞会转移到身体其他部分。
An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast cancer lived longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer (6).
早期德国的比较研究发现患乳腺癌的绝经期后的女性如果不经治疗的话，会比经过治疗的女性活的更久一些。但研究并不建议对患乳腺癌的绝经期后的女性不进行治疗。
This conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical intervention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer (7). Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is metastases that kill while primary tumors in general, and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless. These findings have been confirmed by recent research, which shows that surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end (8).
这个结论确认了一个德国放射学专家Ernst Krokowski的发现。他确定癌症转移通常是由医疗干预引起的，有时候甚至包括切片或与癌症不相关的手术（7）。对肿瘤的干扰会造成更大数量的癌细胞进入血液循环，同时多数的医学治疗（通常是化疗）常常会抑制免疫系统的功能。这些都是最后造成灾难的因素。这个发现在最近的研究中也被证实，即使是与癌症不相关的外科手术也可以出发爆发性的癌扩散最终导致过早死亡。
This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and controls (who did not) but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or incontinence (9).
此前早些时候的报道表明，前列腺癌的根治性手术也会导致疾病扩散。事实上，第一次对多种类型的癌症采取的随机临床试验中所调查记录的前列腺癌样本，在23年后，采取了手术治疗和没有采取手术治疗的存活率并没有任何区别。而那些经过手术的病人却经受了更多的痛苦，比如阳痿和小便失禁。
The late H B Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading US cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society that no study had proven that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies prove conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer, and with better quality of life than treated ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again (10).
后来一位医学物理学专家H B Jones发起了一项美国癌症调查。他在一次演讲中说，在美国癌症协会之前，没有任何研究证实早期的医学干预可以改变癌症患者的存活机会。相反的，他的研究最终证明了没有经过治疗的癌症患者活了四倍的更长时间，生活质量也好于经过治疗的患者。不用说，他再也没有被邀请（参加演讲）了。
Massaging Statistics
A recent epidemiological study confirmed the questionable value of conventional therapy by concluding that 'medical interventions for cancer have had a negligible or no effect on survival' (11). Even the conservative New England Journal of Medicine had an article with the headline: Cancer Undefeated (12).
最近的流行病学研究证实了传统疗法的价值值得怀疑。研究结论表明“癌症的医学干预对存活是微不足道的或是无效的”。甚至保守的《新英格兰医学期刊》也发表了题为“癌症不败”的文章。
Common ways to make medical statistics look more favorable are as follows. Patients who die during prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy are not counted in the statistics, because they did not receive the full treatment. In the control group everyone who dies is counted.
通常让医学统计看起来更讨人喜欢的办法是这样的：在持续很久的化疗和放疗后死亡的病人没有被计算在数，因为他们没有接受完全部的治疗。在不接受任何治疗的对照组里，所有死亡的病人都会被统计到。
Further, success is judged by the percentage of temporary tumor shrinking, regardless of survival times; if survival is measured, then only in terms of dying from the treated disease. It is not normally shown how many of the patients die due to the treatment itself. The current trend is to pick up pre-cancerous conditions very early and treat them as cancer.
进一步的，治疗是否成功用短期内肿瘤缩小的病人所占的比例来评价，而不管存活的时间。如果病人死亡，那么只会算为是疾病导致的死亡，不会显示有多少死亡是由治疗方法本身所造成的。目前的趋势是很早的获取患癌的早期情况，然后把它当做癌症来治疗。
While this statistically increases the number of people with cancer, it also artificially prolongs survival times and lowers death rates, thereby making medical treatments appear to be more successful. However, there may also be a genuine component of improved survival, as increasing numbers of cancer patients opt for additional natural therapies.
当患癌症的人数在不断增长时，用人工的方法延长存活时间和降低死亡率，使得医学治疗看起来似乎更成功了。然而，有越来越多的病人选择了附加的自然疗法，这也许是才存活率提高的真正原因。
An investigation of the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that the death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was 200 percent higher than would normally be expected. Two years after diagnosis and treatment this excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause for the excess death was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means instead of dying several years later of cancer, these patients died from the effects of the treatment and helped greatly improve the cancer statistics because they did not strictly die of cancer (13). This misleading reporting of cancer deaths has led to demands for more honest statistics (14).
一项来自120万癌症患者记录的调查显示，非癌症患者经过治疗后短期内的死亡率要比正常预期高200%。在经过诊断和治疗两年后，这项额外的死亡率降至50%。造成这项额外死亡的最大的共因是心脏或者呼吸衰竭。这表明患者并不是由于癌症在几年后死亡，而是死于癌症治疗的负作用。因为他们没有直接死于癌症，因此这极大地提高了癌症统计数据。这些有误导性的癌症死亡率报道造成了更加诚实的统计数据的需求（14）。
After an analysis of several large mammogram-screening studies found that mammography screening leads to more aggressive treatment with no survival benefits (15), even the editor of the Lancet had to admit that there is no reliable evidence from large randomized trials to support mammography screening programs (15).
一项对几个大型乳腺X射线造影研究的分析发现，乳腺造影筛检会导致对患者存活没有任何好处的更加激进的治疗方法。甚至连《柳叶刀》的编辑也不得不承认并没有来自大型随机临床试验的可靠证据支持乳腺癌筛选治疗程序。
The significance of this statement goes far beyond the use of mammograms. It is openly acknowledged by the proponents of conventional medicine that they have no effective way of helping patients with advanced cancer. Until now the catch-cry always was 'detect it early then it can be cured'. These mammogram evaluation studies demonstrate that it does not matter when cancer is detected, the conventional methods, and with this the whole multi-billion dollar cancer industry, are useless (my conclusion).
这种说法的重要性远超过如何利用X线做乳腺照片本身。它表明传统医学的支持者公开承认了他们没有任何有效的方法来帮助那些癌症晚期的病人。直到现在宣传口号依然是“及早发现才能被治愈”。评价乳腺X线照片价值的研究证实，无所谓癌症是否被检测到，传统的医疗方法，以及整个价值数十亿美元的癌症医疗行业，是没有用处的。（我的结论）
A 13-year Canadian study with 40,000 women compared physical breast examinations with examinations plus mammograms. The mammogram group had many more lumpectomies and surgeries, and the death rate was 107 deaths in the mammography group and 105 in the physical examination group (16).
加拿大一项持续了13年，针对4万女性的研究，将做乳腺体检的女性和乳腺体检之外加做X射线照片的女性进行了比较，乳腺X射线照片组的女性接受了更多的乳腺肿瘤切除手术和外科手术，该组死亡率为107，而普通体检组的死亡率为105.
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a common non-invasive form of breast tumor. Most cases of DCIS are detected through the use of mammography; in younger women 92 per cent of all cancers detected by mammography are of this type. Nevertheless, on average 44%, and in some areas 60%, of these are treated by mastectomy. As most of these tumors are harmless, this greatly improves survival statistics (17).
导管原位癌（DCIS）是乳腺肿瘤的一种常见的非损伤性形式。多数DCIS的案例都是通过乳腺癌造影技术检测到的。在年轻女性中，92%的癌症检测通过乳房x光检查出是这种类型。在一些地方，平均有40%到60%的女性都通过乳腺切除手术进行治疗。而大部分是肿瘤都是无害的，这极大地提高了存活率统计数据。
While conventional diagnosis is invasive and may help to spread the cancer, a kind of electrodermal screening, called Biofield test, was developed by a team from eight European hospitals and universities, and reported in the Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in diagnosing malignancy in breast tumors (18).
由于对损伤人体的传统诊断方法有可能导致癌症扩散，一种皮电性质的筛查方法，称为生物场检测法的技术被由8家欧洲医院和大学组成的研究队伍发明出来。《柳叶刀》报告说，该项技术检测恶性乳腺肿瘤的准确率能达到99.1%。
A large meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that after 2 years there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in addition to surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The editorial states that the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after surgery but it is a shame that the facts do not agree with this theory (19).
一项大型的肺癌放疗统计结果表明，2年以后，手术后由经历了放疗的患者死亡率要比只做过手术的患者死亡率高出21%。一篇社论指出，放疗的原理是杀死任何手术后仍然存在的癌细胞。然而事实却与该理论恰恰相反。
While conventional diagnosis is invasive and may help to spread the cancer, a kind of electrodermal screening, called Biofield test, was developed by a team from eight European hospitals and universities, and reported in the Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in diagnosing malignancy in breast tumors (18).
由于对损伤人体的传统诊断方法有可能导致癌症扩散，一种皮电性质的筛查方法，称为生物场检测法的技术被由8家欧洲医院和大学组成的研究队伍发明出来。《柳叶刀》报告说，该项技术检测恶性乳腺肿瘤的准确率能达到99.1%。
A large meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that after 2 years there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in addition to surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The editorial states that the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after surgery but it is a shame that the facts do not agree with this theory (19).
一项大型的肺癌放疗统计结果表明，2年以后，手术后由经历了放疗的患者死亡率要比只做过手术的患者死亡率高出21%。一篇社论指出，放疗的原理是杀死任何手术后仍然存在的癌细胞。然而事实却与该理论恰恰相反。
联系客服
