STATISTICS CAN BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING

You may have heard that statistics can be used (presented in a way) to "prove" anything. In fact, eminent alternative and conventional cancer treatment researcher Lothar Hirneise devotes much space to the fallacies and lying associated with conventional oncology's "success" statistics (a “success” may for instance involve just a few months lived beyond expectation with severe impairment of quality of life, or ”tumor response” while the truly important thing is normally to prevent metastasis).   

So you may often see conventional doctors argue in terms of "5 years survival", for instance (no matter if at death's door by then). This may have little to do with long-term survival and even less so with quality of life - it may in fact amount to little more than statistical jugglery since patients apparently "cured" by conventional approaches can suddenly fall seriously ill and even die of other diseases which can be directly traced to the toxic treatment(s) they received (see Possible Serious Side Effects of Orthodox Cancer Treatment Doctors Might Not Have Told You About). Such cases will nevertheless be chalked up in official cancer statistics as treatment successes - after all, they managed to cure the patient of cancer first (even if s/he died later of stroke or other sequelae of the toxic treatment they received)...

WHO'S WINNING?
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/cancer-causes-statistics-drugs.html#OnCancerStatistics