janic wrote: So these are good ineffective treatments which are involved, which generates 157.000 victims per year in France.
No, it's manipulation: The remaining 157000 victims are cancer victims.
Who could not be cured by the treatments that others have successfully undergone.
If a mechanic successfully repairs only one in two vehicles and the second ones accidentally break, he would end up in jail and guys like you would accuse the car, not the mechanic.
There are approximately 380000 new cases of cancer per year: The current (constantly evolving) "system" cures approximately 220000.
If the cause of the remaining 157000 victims was the treatment or if the chemo was death to the rat as TC says, the mortality rate would increase. This is not the case:
Already in these 380.000 in question, a part is non-evolving and yet detected therefore counted, others are minor like moles easily treatable without chemo or radius, sufficient surgery
When it does not reach 1 mm, more than 90% of patients are permanently cured by surgical removal.
“The death rate has been steadily decreasing for 25 years.
More:
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article ... 50684.htmlNew cancer cases on the rise in France
A report shows a 45% increase in incidence in women and 6% in men since 1990, excluding the increase in the population and its aging. Mortality has registered a relative decline.It decreases slightly in percentage at 5 years, not beyond.
As a head nurse from Villejuif told me, "if we see them again before 5 years old, it's a sign that the treatment hasn't worked and afterwards if we don't see them again, we also know what that means. "
this is explained by the improvement of treatments and diagnostic methods which make it possible to detect cancers at an earlier stage and therefore easier to manage. "
Example: Between 1989 and 2005, survival went from 80 to 87% for breast cancer, from 72 to 94% for prostate cancer, from 54 to 63% for colorectal cancer but only from 13 to 17% for lung cancer.https://www.fondation-arc.org/le-cancer-en-chiffresYou should also have read:
The survival of people with cancer varies considerably depending on the cancer location: 5-year survival varies as well de 4 % à 98 %. Cancers with a poor prognosis at 5 years (5-year survival less than 33%) represent 31 % cancers in humans and 17 % in women. Cancers with a good prognosis at 5 years (5-year survival greater than or equal to 66%) represent 57 % cancers in women and only 44 % at men's. Over the period 1989-2010, we observed an improvement in standardized net survival at 5 years for most cancers. In general, they insist on the high number, not the low. Therefore
no survival at 5:
43% and 56%. No glop!
Janic wrote:
First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *.
I do not have to say that this or that prevention or care system is this or that.
And yet you said it ...
No, I indicate sources, it is enough to consult them. That I repeat does not engage me more than when you do the same.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré