The 5-year survival figures, not to be confused with the successful treatment of the disease, for the major cancers are:

stomach - 5 percent
trachea, bronchus and lung - 5 percent
breast - 50 percent
oesophagus - 5 percent
large intestine - 22 percent
pancreas - 4 percent
liver - 2 percent 1
There has been no significant increase in survival rates since records began.

The Solid Gold Source

The cancer business is second only, in size, to its big brother, petrochemicals.
In the 20 years from 1970 to 1990, in the USA alone, the cancer business was worth an estimated 1 trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).2 If the same percentage of the overall disease bill applies in Britain as in the US, the current expenditure on cancer will be 3 to 6 billion pounds per year.

With these kind of amounts involved it is quite understandable why the drug/radiation/scalpel/vivisection cancer cartel have maintained a constant, ruthless campaign to suffocate, at birth, any and all attempts to introduce rational therapeutic regimes to deal with the species-threatening plague.
http://www.ivanfraser.com/articles/health/cancerbusiness.html

She has received over 20 courses of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, plus countless surgeries, for a breast cancer that metastized to the bones. Only God knows what her destiny will be!

The other oncologist treating her was quite prepared to continue bombarding her with more chemotherapy and radiation, without even thinking of the detrimental effects and side effects. The cancer was the enemy and this is what we shall attack, irrelevant whether we kill the patient. "The tumour shrunk, but we lost the patient" is something that is often heard in cancer circles.

To my mind the logic stinks and should be carefully reviewed by all who say that they treat cancer. I think it is time to talk a little about cancer treatments for two reasons – first, it has reached pandemic proportions and many families are afflicted with the trauma of this disease, and second, because so many people are dying, even though they are being treated with chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.

If you are being diagnosed with cancer, invariable you will be told to undergo surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, etc. These seem to be the only so-called "proven" paths to take. Most people believe that all medical treatments are solidly grounded in science, and that in order to be made available to patients, such treatments must be unequivocally proven to be effective by rigorous clinical trials. This is simply not true!

But are there other paths that the cancer patient can take, while still under the care of their oncologist? The problem with any other natural treatment is that it is seen with suspicion by most medical doctors, often saying that they are unproven and therefore cannot be used. Dr. David Brownstein, in the foreword of the book: Avoiding Breast Cancer wrote: "The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that a cure for cancer will be found by a "magic-bullet" drug. This will never occur."
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/cancer-killing-the-patient.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=oaw-apr1709

As we have just seen, conventional cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. These huge profits are fiercely protected by the industry giants. But their treatments in no way address the underlying causes of cancer. Cancer is a nutritional, toxic, environmental condition which, in a great number of cases, can be reversed successfully through the application of a sound nutritional approach and common-sense lifestyle changes.

Dr. Ralph Moss on conventional cancer therapies

Ralph Moss, Ph.D. is probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies for cancer, and has recently published a 530-page book, "Cancer Therapy, The Independent Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention", which I highly recommend.
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/politics-of-cancer.htm

n a recently released book, Dr. Samuel Epstein reveals evidence implicating industrial carcinogens that permeate our environment -- in our foods, our air, our water, our consumer products.

And he blames the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) -- what he calls "the cancer establishment" -- for ignoring these causes and instead spending billions on the elusive search for a magic bullet cure for cancer.

Epstein maintains that with a comprehensive program of prevention, we can drive cancer rates back down to the relatively low rates of the 1950s.

Every couple of months or so there is a major story in the national press about a breakthrough in cancer treatment. These breakthroughs rarely pan out and thus cruelly raise the hopes of cancer victims worldwide.
http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus/msg00002.html

The question is how we go about it. Presidential hopeful Al Gore unveiled a plan in June 1999 to assure "revolutionary progress in preventing, detecting, and treating cancer in the 21st century." This past June he promised to double federal funding on cancer research to prevent and cure the most fatal cancers. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) launched her own cancer initiative last year, calling for a rehaul of the 1971 National Cancer Act through bipartisan legislation that "fully exploits current scientific opportunity and progress in the fight against cancer."

Both politicians have a very personal stake in the cancer debate. Gore lost his sister to lung cancer, an experience he described in grim detail in his famous 1996 Democratic National Convention speech. Feinstein lost her first husband to colon cancer, as well as many other family members and close friends to other forms of the disease. Yet, however well intentioned these initiatives are, neither proposal challenges the fundamental direction of the national cancer agenda. Gore's five-step plan makes no mention of preventing cancer until step four. Most of this "prevention" plank misleadingly focuses on improving access to screening tests and proposes campaigns limited to changing lifestyle habits and stopping children from smoking. Nowhere does Gore's proposal call for reducing or eliminating exposure to known carcinogens in our air, food, and water, in our consumer products (both personal care and household goods), or in our workplaces. Feinstein's initiative promises "to be as inclusive as possible in seeking input from the widest range of diverse sources," yet control of her proposal rests largely with the old guard of the cancer establishment, primarily represented by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute.
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/tikkun_2000.htm

Feinstein said her goal is to "form our new battle plan to fight cancer." The legislation was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, then chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). In April 2002, a similar bill, with 11 co-sponsors, was submitted to the House of Representatives.

These Bills establish a national network of 20 "translation" centers to combine basic and clinical research, and to commercialize promising findings. They also mandate insurance coverage for cancer screening, smoking cessation, genetic testing, and quality care standards, while making no reference to prevention.

Regrettably, this well-intentioned Bill unwittingly surrenders the National Cancer Program to special interests. The legislation has been strongly criticized by survivor coalitions, headed by the Cancer Leadership Council, and also the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Of major concern, the Bill displaces control of cancer policy from the public to the private sector, the federal NCI to the "nonprofit" ACS, and thus creates confusing duplication and overlapping responsibility.

American Cancer Society Seeks Control of U. S. Cancer Policy

As disturbing as the Bill is its background. Meeting behind closed doors in September 1998, the ACS created, funded and promoted the National Dialogue on Cancer (NDC). This was co-chaired by former President George Bush and Barbara Bush, with Senator Feinstein as vice-chairman, and former Governors Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin as "Collaborating Partners" (37). Included also were some 100 representatives of survivor groups and the cancer drug industry. The NDC leadership, including ACS President-Elect Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach, without informing its NDC participants, then unilaterally spun off its own Legislative Committee, co-chaired by Dr. John Seffrin, CEO of the ACS, and Dr. Vincent DeVita, NCI director from 1980 to 1988, to advise Congress on the proposed new Act. DeVita’s track record as NCI Director was characterized by hostility to cancer prevention, and attempts to mislead Congress to the contrary (12).
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/nci/nci_privatization.htm

"Such letters...from the FDA, are, filled with objectively demonstrable lies, practiced deceptions and deviousness, red herrings, directed misinformation, misdirected information, etc. ...Once FDA-NCI-AMA-ACS...concedes that Laetrile anti-tumor efficacy was indeed even once observed...a permanent crack in bureaucratic armor has taken place." - Dr. Dean Burke, co-founder, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cyto-chemistry section: open letter July 3, 1973.

"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976

"My analyses and conclusions differ diametrically from those of the Southern Research Institute/National Cancer Institute report wherein it is concluded that amygdalin 'does not possess activity in the Lewis lung carcinoma system.'…. My analysis of the data is that it is overwhelmingly positive." — Dr. Dean Burk, while serving as Chief of the Cytochemistry Division of the National Cancer Institute, March 22, 1974, letter to Dr. Seymour Perry, Deputy Director, NCI Division of Cancer Treatment.

"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982. Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 151st Judicial District, 80-52271 http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000045.htm
http://www.whale.to/a/burk_h.html

The second reason lies in the economic comforts and privilege that this allopathic medical monopoly provides. The Physician has enjoyed a unique status of wealth, power and prestige, unchallenged until recent years. The public is becoming educated and medicine has failed to deliver on one promise after another. Having spent close to forty years in medicine, I know that there are very few physicians who perpetuate the myth knowingly. The rewards tend to dull one's ability to be critical. It is also very difficult to challenge or search for the flaws in the basic meaning of an entire life's work. Can you imagine looking back and having to say to yourself, "I did it all wrong!" ?

Lastly, we have a corrupt, self-serving and often inept government bureaucracy that protects these special powerful interests. They can be vicious and fanatic in their zealousness. The result: pain and suffering, needless deaths and a waste of resources beyond imagination, which has been the greatest single contributing factor responsible for the huge national debt threatening to cripple our nation.

Chelation has not only improved heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, arthritis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, but also, Studies indicate a 50% reduction in the occurrence of cancer in individuals who have received EDTA! Chelation has been reported to improve asthma, emphysema, brain function, muscular coordination, Multiple Sclerosis and impotence.
http://www.whale.to/cancer/willner_b1.html

Mine begins with a very simple construct: What is the nature of wellness? And unless you ask that, then all of the health-care in the world is not going to make a whole lot of difference. All it will do is make certain individuals wealthier than what they already are. Is the idea that if we had more doctors, more hospitals, and more medicine we would have more healthy people? Because currently, virtually ALL of the programs being offered in the United States have that as their notion of reality.

And yet, when I take the time to look at the actual studies -- the studies offered by the various groups like the American College of Physicians and Surgeons, or the American Psychiatric Association's manuals -- I keep coming back to the same thing. And this puzzles me, but it ties exactly in with the theme: democracy and fascism.

A large segment of the American population have been living under a false impression -- that MORE is going to be the answer to making it BETTER. Up to this point, it has not occurred. Now, we have not been selfish in this. We have spent over fifty billion dollars on cancer research. Over one trillion on treatment.

Now, when you spend a trillion dollars on something, you're going to assume you're going to come up with some positive ideas. But there ARE no positive ideas in cancer. The mortality rate is increasing at 1.3% per year. THIS YEAR, you will have in excess of 650,000 Americans dying of cancer.

Now, unfortunately, 25% of those cancer deaths will come from secondary effects due to the chemotherapy or treatments themselves. In fact, the latest study, (I just read it this morning), shows that bacterial infection increased tremendously in the presence of chemotherapy. And this was from a peer revue journal and it showed that the treatments themselves so lowered the immune system that normal organisms that the body is able to deal with no longer can be dealt with, and as a result the organism itself becomes the primary reason that people get sicker and die.
http://www.whale.to/cancer/politics.html