Like there aren’t enough cancer screening tests yet: now there is a screening test for oral cancer. And of course the developers push for it to become a national screening program. How else would they make money with their invention?
Let’s first have a look at other cancer screening programs: mammography is known to cause an awful lot of false positives and false negatives, does not find cancer early and causes cancer. Bowel cancer screening just increases the number of colonoscopies with huge numbers, which causes more deaths than no screening at all. Skin cancer screening is not particularly dangerous, but it can lead to cutting out spots that are not cancerous, leaving bad scars. So let’s face it: cancer screening programs cause a lot of harm and don’t do any good. They just cost a lot of money (read: they make the cancer industry a lot of money). So what’s new with this test?
“If oral cancer is detected too late, the survival rate is only 30 per cent,” That shows that cancer treatments are pretty poor. But don’t get deceived by the word “survival”. In cancer terminology “survival” means that you are still alive (not necessarily cancer free) five years after diagnosis. If you die a week later you are still a survivor. But most cancer patients don’t even make it to that five year mark.
“So far the UTS team have successfully tested 400 Sydney residents.” What on earth does that mean? Did they test 400 people and 1 of them had cancer? Or did they test 4 million and got 400 positives? And what about false positives and false negatives? I have no idea what they mean with success.
But then it gets really hilarious. “so if we can transform that stage of diagnosis, they suddenly have a 90 per cent chance of living beyond five years.” If we diagnose you two years earlier, then you have a 40% higher chance of living five years after diagnosis. Really? This has nothing to do with better treatment or better diagnosis. It’s nothing more than a very simply calculation. If none of these patients would be treated, then all of them would die around the same time. Earlier diagnosis just gives you more time to reach the five years, as it’s the moment of diagnosis that makes the clock start ticking. “I think that’s remarkable.” Mrs. Khoury, the only remarkable thing here is that you obviously got a university degree while having the intelligence of a pineapple.
“Since then Ms Suchy has been diagnosed with the cancer three times, but still considers herself lucky.” So she is still not cured, has been severely mutilated and “considers herself lucky”. That’s the result of decades of brainwashing that oncology is so great and saves lives. Reality is that probably the treatments she got caused more cancers. Maybe if she hand’t done anything she would also still be alive. And she definitely would if she would have stayed away from oncologists and had chosen for natural treatments, which give at least 99% chance of a cure. That is a cure, not “survival”. It’s also funny that researchers always come with the odd person who has a “positive” story. They won’t quote those people who got terribly mutilated for a false positve test. And they don’t talk to relatives of people who died from the treatment. This way it looks promising, but it’s not.
“And there could be a lot of savings to the health system, as well as the patients.” Considering that oncology is a many billions of dollars a year industry, talking about savings for the health care system is a joke. The only thing that cancer screening programs have succeeded with is increasing the costs, the deaths and the misery. Oncology is one of the biggest frauds in history. More people than ever get cancer and more people than ever die after a cancer diagnosis (which doesn’t mean they die from the cancer, as many patients die from the treatment before they can die from the cancer). The unfortunate truth is that the cancer industry doesn’t want cures. They want money.