Cancer—Does Early Detection Really Mean Longer Life?

(Because of so much publicity now about supporting early breast cancer detection, this article explaining the rest of the story is being republished.)

by Heidi Stevenson

9 October 2009

It's virtually an article of faith that early cancer detection will save your life. There's a clarion call to focus on early cancer identification. Women are told to have regular mammograms. We're taught to fear any changes in our skin. It has the status of a paradigm—a truth so well accepted that it isn't questioned. It's so well entrenched that no studies are done to determine whether it's true. This article doesn't presume to offer a definitive answer, but aims to point out the flaws in the paradigm.

The first issue is those claims that are "proven" by showing how long people live after diagnosis now as compared to a few years ago. It does look good, but the reality might not be so simple. Tricks are used to skew the data.

Let's take a look at the first figure. In it, we have the date of the cancer's onset as year zero. It's diagnosed in year 9 and treated aggressively. The patient dies at year 10½. The patient's lifespan after diagnosis would be reported as 1½ years after diagnosis.

Now take a look at the second figure. Here, the date of onset is the same, year zero. It is diagnosed in year 2, much earlier than in the first example, and also treated aggressively. The patient dies in year 8, a full six years after the date of diagnosis. By the standards of mainstream medicine, this sort of scenario would be considered a "cure", since the patient lives more than five years.

However, when you compare this result with the first example, it becomes apparent that this patient's lifespan was not enhanced by the earlier diagnosis. Although she lives six years after diagnosis, as compared to only 1½ years, she actually enjoys a significantly lower lifespan after the cancer's onset: 8 years instead of 10̳ years. Obviously, the lifespan we're most interested in is from the date of onset. From this, it's clear that measuring from the date of diagnosis is a red herring.

Obviously, this is simplified, since we don't really know from such a simplified case whether the earlier diagnosis results in longer or shorter life. That, though, is the point: Since the appropriate measure is not what's being calculated and reported, we really have no idea whether people are living longer because of earlier diagnoses.

The next image, #3, documents another trick of the cancer trade: denial of the reality that some cases of cancer, possibly most, are never diagnosed. Naturally, when the focus is on finding and diagnosing disease for the purpose of bringing people into the cancer trade, cases that are never diagnosed aren't counted. These cases simply don't show up in the statistics, but they're real, as documented in "Cancer Is Defeated by a Healthy Immune System" and they may be quite common.

There is yet another way that death rates from cancer are skewed, as image #4 demonstrates. Cancer treatments are extremely harsh. They temporarily and permanently damage the body. Resistance to infections is lowered. The very thing that the body requires to naturally keep cancer in check—the immune system—is harmed. People diagnosed with cancer early are subjected to virulently toxic drugs and radiation, so are significantly more likely to die of other causes.

These causes are not recorded as deaths by cancer. So, as shown in image #4, someone whose cancer is diagnosed early and, therefore, receives aggressive treatment, may die from the treatment and not be recorded as a cancer death. An example of this sort of thing was noted in the Lancet Oncology journal: People who'd had hepatitis in the past became ill with hepatitis again as a result of chemotherapy for cancer⁽¹⁾.

What's the Truth About Cancer Longevity?

The truth is quite complex, and for the most part, not well understood. It certainly seems like early diagnosis of cancer is to the patient's benefit, almost like a no-brainer. When examined closely, though, what seems so obvious is not, for the most part, supported by facts.

Cancer treatments are brutal and take an enormous toll on the body and mind. They can reduce the quality of life so severely that any lifespan gains are a pyrrhic victory. Some studies have shown that 75% of doctors would refuse chemotherapy⁽²⁾

A study done in Australia⁽³⁾ documents that cytotoxic drugs, mainstream medicine's primary means of fighting cancer, result in, at best, a 2.3% survival rate in Australia and 2.1% rate in America over 5 years.

It has been known for a long time that cancer sometimes regresses, that it can just go away. The Gaia Health report, "Cancer Is Defeated by a Healthy Immune System," discusses this in more depth. The question here is: Does earlier cancer detection limit the survival rate? There is strong evidence that, in some cases, this may be true. There is also strong evidence that the tests themselves may harm health and even increase cancer. "Cancer Is Caused by Tests Intended to Diagnose It" discusses this issue.

Finally, there is the question of how best to avoid cancer and treat it when it does happen. These concerns are addressed in "The Best Tips for Avoiding Cancer" and "What Steps to Take If You Do Find Yourself with Cancer".