Replies

Check this from ex texas redhead:

CHEMOTHERAPY IS AN INEFFECTIVE CANCER TREATMENT From ExTexasRedhead

| 05/05/2026 2:50:56 PM PDT new

Chemotherapy is an ineffective cancer treatment:

The only reason that it is still used is because it's a gigantic money maker

https://expose-news.com/2026/05/05/chemotherapy-is-an-ineffective-cancer-treatment/

Beginning in 2011, American Naturopath Dr. Peter Glidden has been publicly speaking out against using chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer.

It is ineffective, harmful and is only still being used because of the huge profits the drug makes for the pharmaceutical industry and doctors, he said.

Dr. Peter Glidden is a licensed Naturopathic Physician and an outspoken advocate of Wholistic Health. He is the author of several books, including ‘The MD Emperor Has No Clothes’ and the trilogy ‘Leave Big Pharma Behind’.

In July 2011, he was interviewed by iHealthTube. In the interview, Dr. Glidden cited a 2004 study that “concludes better than 90% of the time, chemotherapy does not work. Yet it's one of the main treatments in the battle against cancer. Dr. Glidden explains why that's still the case,” iHealthTube said in the video description.

The study titled ‘The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies’ was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2004. “It was a 12-year programme, 12-year study,” Dr. Glidden explained. “They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult, not childhood cancer but adult cancer.”

“They did a meta-analysis of these people all around the world who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo … And the results? Ninety-seven per cent of the time, chemotherapy does not work,” he said.

The actual wording of the authors was, “In this evidence-based analysis, we have estimated that the contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults is 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.”

“So why is [chemotherapy] still used?” Dr. Glidden asked and then answered his own question: “There's one reason and one reason only: money. “

............................................

This from AI:

Over the past 50 years, the U.S. has spent more than $7.2 billion annually on cancer research through the National Cancer Institute alone.

That's over 350 billion just to the NIH alone on a world wide basis:

Here's a rough calculation from AI on a world wide basis:

Rough Calculation

If we apply a conservative multiplier (3 times), global spending could be estimated at:

$350 billion x 3 = $1.05 trillion.

Using a higher multiplier (5 times), it could go up to:

$350 billion x 5 = $1.75 trillion.

..........................................

So if over a trillion and maybe double that was put into research on most any disease what are the odds that a cure has already been found?

here's what AI has to say about wheterher or not a cure has already been found or not:

Statistical Consideration

Given the high investment (between $1.05 to $1.75 trillion) over the past 50 years and the inherent complexities of cancer, we can infer that:

Multiple breakthroughs have occurred that help manage and sometimes eliminate specific types of cancer rather than a generalized cure for all.

Conclusion

While it's difficult to assign specific odds, the continuous research efforts have indeed led to greater understanding and advancements in cancer treatment. However, the idea of a universal "cure" for all cancers remains elusive due to the complexity of the disease. The odds might be low for a singular cure, but the cumulative effect of research has led to substantial improvements in outcomes for many patients.

End AI conclusion.

................................................

As anyone with half a brain can see we have been screwed over!!There is a cure no doubt and big pharma,doctors, hospitals the rest will not reveal what it is UNLEss you for over big bucks.

Some suggest that pills are avaliable that cost mega thousands each pill that do cure cancer!

I think AI spilled the beans here.

It's all in the approval process.

Here's what AI has to say about the approval process:

.........................................

2. Regulatory Scrutiny

Approval Process:

Any medication claiming to be a “cure” must go through rigorous clinical trials and regulatory scrutiny. Claims of cures should be approached cautiously, especially when they lack solid scientific backing.

..........................................

So you have to wonder if a handful of medical types decide whether or not they have a "cure" makes the call who are they? What bias do they have? Just how much solid scientific backing is actually necessary when millions die every year? How much of an effort is actually made to claim a cure exists? And since one likely does exist why does it cost thousands a month when the research money has already been spent?

Some might speculate that cancer research is: Truly all about the money.

Remember the rule here on FR:

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

CHemo with a 2-3% cure rate still reccommended as a cure for cancer: