"Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required."

I personally don't like the idea of chemo at all, as I think there should be a better way than poisoning the body further, but I have a close relative who is alive after having a virulent form of ovarian cancer. She had surgery, radiation and chemo, age 40. It has been 4 years. Which one of those treatments helped the most, I dont know. It was a horrible year for her, but every year is a blessing now.

The 60% survival rate of cancer and the conclusion that chemo isn't worth the money made me question as the studies I read following that statement doesn't really prove out, especially since the form.of treatment has been chemo, radiation, and surgery (when able).

The powers that be have also tried to get rid of dialysis for people who are older and have multiple health problems, due to "cost effectiveness".

You can see where this is going when people were denied transplants because they weren't vaccinated.

Who decides who lives and who dies?