Confession of a doctor of conscience for 50 years of chemotherapy is a fraud.

 The only thing that has no life-sustaining effect of chemotherapy is harsh toxicity. Among blood and solid cancers such as acute leukemia and malignant lymphoma, almost all cancers, except uterine sarcoma, guan cancer, and digestive cancer, are never low, and there is no evidence that their lifespan is prolonged. 

콘도가토토 항암치료는 사기다

Most of the cancer deaths are caused by poor functioning of metastatic organs, so if there are no symptoms and there is no metastasis, life will not be taken away if left unattended.Kondogakoto chemotherapy is a fraud.# Treatment with highly toxic anticancer drugs ruins daily life, wastes property, and shortens life.You should not do anything stupid that ruins your daily life, wastes your family fortune, and shortens your life with toxic chemotherapy. It will give new confidence to those who have doubts about anticancer drugs or those who want to quit chemotherapy. Then should a person with cancer just wait for death? 1. Anti-cancer drugs don't work.

◇ In the case of solid cancer, there is no life-sustaining effect on anticancer drugs.Clearly, most blood cancers, such as acute leukemia and malignant lymphoma, should choose anticancer drugs as their top priority, and that can be said to be the standard treatment. However, in the case of solid cancers where cancer forms lumps, such as lung cancer and stomach cancer, anticancer drugs have no significant effect. In addition, anticancer drugs have no power to prolong the patient's life.  Why are you so sure?  That is the result of clinical trials of anticancer drugs. Clinical trials are the last means of knowing the life-sustaining effect, but the life-sustaining effect of anticancer drugs has not been recognized. Doctors are insisting on the opposite conclusion to society. A false paper is published in a medical magazine Clinicians are not aware of government manipulation or concealment. Early detection appears to have extended the survival period. There is no life-sustaining effect on "heceptin" and "Iressa". Even if the molecular target drug for solid cancer is approved, it is no different from its effect. So why is there a difference in the effectiveness of molecular target drugs on chronic myeloid leukemia and solid cancer? This is because there is a difference in the origin or properties of the target molecule. The former is separated from normal cells, and it is important that more than 20,000 genes of normal cells also have cancer cells. Cancer cells produce proteins corresponding to each gene using the phosphorus gene as a blueprint, and these proteins also have normal cells as long as the gene set is common or cancer cells. In that way, molecular target drugs attack molecules in normal cells, which is toxic. On the other hand, these molecules cannot be said to be essential for normal cells to become cancer cells or for the maintenance or survival of cancer cells. It only plays an auxiliary role at the top of cancer cells. Therefore, even if the function is inhibited, cancer cells cannot be killed. ◇ A pharmaceutical company employee or consultant becomes the author of the paper.Let's see what's going on behind the scenes. The drug cost is high on the premise of the situation during this interest. Molecular targeted drugs are also expensive. Since all drugs are administered for several months, even if insurance is applied, the burden on patients, families, and society is enormous. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies make huge profits. Whether a pharmaceutical company can benefit from these benefits depends on whether the drug is licensed, so if approved, it is equivalent to receiving a guarantee of standard treatment at the same time, so huge sales are promised. And whether it is approved depends on the survival curve of the clinical trial. If there is a relationship between the survival curve and licensing, it is not difficult to imagine how pharmaceutical companies will act to show a good survival curve. Therefore, we expect researchers (the author of the paper) who interpret the data so that the contents of the paper are not distorted to act fairly and centrally, but "it is difficult to expect." " Most of the authors of the paper are clinicians and are in charge of cancer treatment, so anti-cancer drugs and molecular target solutions are effective, and there is a relationship that the number of patients increases and improves economically. Moreover, economic ties with pharmaceutical companies are serious. Recently, major medical magazines have voluntarily reported the author's economic relationship with pharmaceutical companies and are required to be included in the paper. In the United States, it is an orthopedic surgeon dealing with artificial joints, but about 30% of doctors honestly did not report it voluntarily. The survey revealed the amount of money individual doctors received from companies. Average amount received per year/$150,000 per year in 2007/highest was $7 million. This is a study of artificial joints that generate huge profits. In this way, it can be fully assumed that the author of a living human paper, not an artificial joint, promotes the interests of a pharmaceutical company. 

◇ Even if standard treatment is invalidated, the patient or family is not in any trouble. Even if standard treatment is invalidated, the patient or family is not in any trouble. Rather, I think invalidating it will be good news because the physical and financial burden on the patient or family will be greatly reduced 

2. What is "effective"?

◇ "It works" is not what the doctor calls "healing."For example, a doctor said, "Because cancer sometimes shrinks: It works," but the patient or family who listens to it accepts that cancer is cured. Or it is concluded that it will survive even if it does not heal. It is natural that this misunderstanding affects the behavior of patients or families. In addition, the problem with doctors treating anticancer drugs is that patients, their families, or society engaged in chemotherapy "speak to misunderstand." 

◇ Even if the lump of cancer becomes smaller, life may be lost due to toxicity.

◇ Cancer that rapidly shrinks and disappears also recurs quickly. In some cases, cancer lumps are significantly reduced to anticancer drugs. However, anti-cancer drugs do not have a life-sustaining effect. Even if the lump of cancer shrinks, it must grow again, and cancers that shrink or disappear rapidly tend to recur quickly. In addition, since there is toxicity, the possibility that the case had a shorter life span cannot be ruled out. 

◇ Don't underestimate the toxicity of "steroids" that hide the seven skins of anticancer drugs.I often heard from a patient that his condition improved after chemotherapy. But it's not the effect of anticancer drugs, it's a concurrent "steroid." In the end, like steroid anticancer drugs, they must have side effects or toxicity. In the end, steroid use weakens the side effects of anticancer drugs felt by patients, so the number of cases of refusing anticancer drugs decreases, increasing the number of treatments and prolonging the treatment period. As a result, the side effects of steroids are severe, so the toxicity of anticancer drugs accumulates or increases, and the toxicity of anticancer drugs also accumulates or increases as the number of practical uses increases. And all of that strengthens the life-shortening effect. In this way, steroids increase the toxicity of anticancer drugs.◇ Clinical trials that recognize life-sustaining effects are difficult to trust. 

◇ The more prestigious medical journals are, the less reliable papers there are.This is because the judges who have full authority to publish papers are colleagues in the same department. That's inevitable, because a dermatologist can't evaluate an oncologist's thesis, right? Also, if the new drug in the paper is highly valued, they will enjoy the benefits. 3. Don't do a tumor surgeon.It is about arguing with each other with clinical trial data. 

4. Why are you mistaken? 

◇ Cancer can also enter the hospice ward. Those who have read this far probably understood the intolerance and harmfulness of anticancer drugs in their heads. But isn't it that you can't throw away anti-cancer drugs in your mind?  The fear of cancer may be the reason why people can't shake off their lingering feelings about anti-cancer drugs. You think that cancer is scary or that you need to rely on something. I don't have the courage to tell cancer patients not to be afraid of death, but using anti-cancer drugs to tell the truth has the opposite effect that life may be shortened due to toxicity. 

◇ The end of cancer doesn't hurt.Fear of cancer is likely to be afraid of pain or pain, not dying. But it's a misunderstanding if you think pain will definitely appear at the end of the day. The pain is about half of the cases, and the pain can be completely cured.

◇ There was a time when I was deluded, too. The reason why it is not convincing from anticancer drugs may be that "But isn't there anyone who gets better with anticancer drugs?" However, acute leukemia and back types are stable, and solid cancers such as lung cancer are not cured. However, from the perspective of patients and their families, they think, "How will their cancer also heal?" because the cancer is actually healing. There was a time when I was similarly deluded about this. Therefore, anticancer drugs were frequently used for many breast cancer patients, and anticancer drugs were recommended in his book. Recently I've withdrawn that part but as a researcher in life I think it's the biggest fault or the biggest stain. 5. What toxicity is there?

◇ The structure and function of cancer cells and normal cells are almost the same.Therefore, anticancer drugs that kill cancer cells must also kill normal cells. That is what appears to be toxic to each organ. Therefore, non-toxic anticancer drugs cannot be expected forever. 

◇ Anti-cancer drugs are carcinogens.Symptoms of something worsening in patients caused by anticancer drugs are commonly called side effects. If it is a side effect, it would be a nuance that it is a symptom that the patient can feel. So, for example, if there is no vomiting or hair loss, the patient's family thinks that there are no side effects, and the doctor also recommends that there are no side effects and that it is a good medicine. But that is wrong. This is because even if you feel many side effects, the harm of anticancer drugs is accumulating below the surface. Anti-cancer drugs are poison. Most anticancer drugs other than poison are classified as "drugs." The standard that distinguishes poison from poison is lethal dose.

Continuous administration of anticancer drugs will increase the total amount of injection, resulting in continuous accumulation of toxicity. Anti-cancer drugs are also carcinogens. A considerable number of anticancer drugs are carcinogenic because they have mutagenicity that causes mutations in the genes of normal cells. It is very contradictory that cancer occurs with anticancer drugs. However, it is not immediately carcinogenic or all of them are carcinogenic. Therefore, if an anticancer drug has a life-sustaining effect, the use of the anticancer drug should be allowed. However, even mistakes should not be dragged into the body of normal people. For this reason, strict manuals are stipulated for pharmacists who adjust anticancer drugs or nurses who deal with patient filth. 

For this reason, adjuvant therapy is required. For example, after breast cancer surgery, most of the patients do not have cancer cells anywhere in the dream, so they are the same as healthy people. In addition, using anticancer drugs in the term of adjuvant therapy adds carcinogenicity in addition to various toxicity. The same is true of adjuvant therapy after cancer surgery in other organs, but in the case of breast cancer, adriamycin or endoxane is used a lot, so the problem is even greater. 

◇ Each time you change an anticancer drug, the probability of death increases.

The development of new anticancer drugs is due to the poor treatment performance of anticancer drugs until then. The desire of the "anti-cancer drug mafia" to use and approve more effective anticancer drugs is driving the development of new drugs. But "listen well" is the problem

In the case of anticancer drugs, it means that the killing cell effect is high. Of course, officials aim to kill cancer cells, but as long as the structure and function of cancer cells and normal cells are in common, highly toxic anticancer drugs are inevitably developed. Even if a new anticancer drug is developed in this way, the treatment performance does not increase, and only toxicity increases. There is no future for anti-cancer drugs as a killer cell poison. 

6. Then what should I do?

As a prerequisite, it targets "solid cancer" such as lung cancer and stomach cancer. Blood cancer, which is highly likely to be cured with anticancer drugs, is excluded from the list. In addition, even solid cancer is excluded from the list because testicular cancer or uterine mammary cancer is also likely to appear as an anticancer drug.

◇ A case of pain or pain resulting from metastasis.

If there is pain or pain due to metastasis, these must be removed. When the body is comfortable, it is mentally stable, and resistance to cancer is restored, leading to life-sustaining. 

◇ Even if there is a long-term war, if it is asymptomatic, there is no immediate risk to life.

In this case, there is often no need for objective treatment. However, it is unbearable to say that there is no need for treatment as a family of patients. So, anything is good, so treatment... is often rushed to anticancer drug treatment. Also, on the contrary, even if the patient thinks that he or she does not want to receive anticancer drugs, there are many people who oppose it like mountains. In addition, doctors say anti-cancer drugs are standard treatments, and life is shortened if anti-cancer drugs are not treated. Preaching that it is foolish not to take anti-cancer drugs. That's why I deeply understand the reason that it is not effective to avoid anticancer drugs. 

The meaning of not working here is not better. This means that there is no life-sustaining effect. Cancer cells and normal cells suffer from their structure or function. In other words, cancer cells are not foreign substances or enemies, but are part of themselves. Therefore, anticancer drugs that kill cancer cells must kill sperm cells. 

◇ I don't know if there is metastasis or not 

Exceptionally, some seem to have the meaning of anticancer drugs. It is a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. It is important to note that radiation is the main thing in this therapy. In addition, anticancer drugs and radiation should be administered on the same day. It is for the cooperative effect. 

7. How to deal with cancer other than anti-cancer drugs. 

◇ 90% of cancer deaths are due to metastasis.

◇ It is not dangerous without metastasis. 

every cancer in every organ is either spreading to another organ or not, including a very small latent metastasis. It is logically self-evident, but the point of the theory is that cancer that has not metastasized will not metastasize even if left unattended afterwards. If metastasis does not occur even if left unattended, local areas can be dealt with somehow, so there is no risk of life. Cancer without organ metastasis is called "fake cancer." On the other hand, cancer with organ metastasis is "real cancer." 

◇ Early detection by examination is meaningless.

The biggest reason why early detection theory collapsed is that at the level of modern medicine, the different properties of real and fake cancer are included in the same cancer category. 

◇ Pathological diagnosis cannot distinguish cancer from benign.

The reality of pathological diagnosis is the judgment of the appearance of cells. It sounds scientific at first glance if you diagnose it by looking at the role of the cell or the size of the nucleus, but just as you can't accurately determine a person's personality by looking at the impression, the nature of the lesion cannot be confirmed by the appearance of the cell. 

◇ What happens if cancer is left unattended?

At this time, fake cancer does not lead to death even if left unattended. Even if it is a clinical result, I think it will be difficult for the reader to understand. 

◇ Cancer treatment is not unnecessary. 

What should not be misunderstood is that cancer treatment is not unnecessary. There are also "fake cancers" that can lead to death if left unattended. There is a possibility of local death even if the previous death is not. They include laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer, head and neck cancer of the back, esophageal cancer, cervical cancer, and bile duct cancer. These are often long-term metastases, but even if they do not metastasize, the source of the disease increases and there is a possibility of local death due to self-function. How should I deal with these? Early detection efforts are unnecessary because the theory of early detection has collapsed. 

However, if you don't have a cold, but you don't have a good voice (laryngeal cancer), choke (pharyngeal cancer, esophageal cancer), irregular bleeding (vaccinal neck cancer), or yellow white eye (bile duct cancer), you should be examined and receive reasonable treatment is found. In this case, it is appropriate to leave organs with treatment such as radiation, not chemotherapy. 

How to deal with metastasis: No anticancer drug treatment is recommended, the problem is long-term, asymptomatic metastasis. In fact, there are clinical trials that investigate the effectiveness of postoperative tests in breast cancer or colon cancer. The results do not extend their lifespan even if they are frequently examined. There are no clinical trials for other cancers, but the conclusion is that cancer that does not heal from fake cancer theory does not heal through postoperative tests. In some cases, regular tests may shorten the life span. In many cases, it is found that tumor markers have risen at a very small stage, that is, metastatic lesions that cannot be found in imaging tests, and thus anticancer drug treatment is rushed. 

If you do so, the treatment period for anticancer drugs will be extended, increasing toxicity, and shortening the lifespan. However, the disadvantage of colorectal cancer is that it is often caused by surgery or radio wave cauterization. As a result of postoperative examination, there is a possibility that the average life span of the entire patient will increase.  In the theory of fake cancer, there is no need to receive ct regularly while worrying about radiation exposure. If your doctor's attitude is bad and you don't want to be treated, it's okay for the patient to break up the relationship. Rather, there is a phenomenon of stress reduction.

◇ For cancer, "late detection" is desirable.

Real cancer is not detected early, but it is desirable to detect late stages if possible. If you do so, natural death will be possible as in the old days. If real cancer is detected early, there is a possibility that it will be treated with surgery or anticancer drugs as much as possible. In response, if it is a terminal discovery, doctors say it is too late and more people will give up active treatment. However, in reality, even if it is asymptomatic, it is difficult to give up treatment if cancer is found and suffers from a doctor. However, if treated, there is a possibility that life will be shortened. 

Today, it is calling for early detection and early treatment of various adult diseases such as high blood pressure and diabetes as well as cancer. However, there is no evidence that this also prolongs life. Even if you receive comprehensive checkups regularly and follow your doctor's instructions, on the contrary, your life is likely to be shortened (the truth of adult diseases), so it is recommended not to take medical checkups or comprehensive checkups, including cancer checkups. 

How to deal with workplace health checkups: If forced, tell the person in charge to reduce the number of test items as much as possible. In particular, Rontgen photography for gastric cancer detection should be prevented because only carcinogenic effects from exposure can be expected. They don't even have an endoscopy. When it comes to breast, it is enough to examine if the lump is touched, so mammography or ultrasound are not taken. Thank you.