Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

Mostly false Overinterpreted Certainty of evidence: high provisional C-CHM-09

The archive's 19 chemo/radiation studies are presented on the homepage as 'scientific studies confirming what Dr. Diaa proposed'; the harm-only study selection implies that the harms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy outweigh their benefits.

Safety note: Do not refuse, stop or delay recommended cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone or targeted therapy) in favour of a diet. In curable cancers, replacing standard treatment with alternative approaches is associated with a markedly higher risk of death (I-CHM-03, I-CHM-04), and even four-week delays are associated with higher mortality (I-CHM-07). Late effects are real and are managed by survivorship and cardio-oncology care; discuss them with the treating oncology team. Nutrition can be adapted alongside treatment with the oncology team. No individual medical advice is given here.
In short: Mostly false: the side effects listed by the archive are real, but high-quality randomised evidence shows that for patients in whom they are recommended, chemotherapy and radiotherapy prevent far more deaths than they cause; the harm-only selection does not support the implied conclusion.
Conclusion: Documented side effects do not show that chemotherapy and radiotherapy do more harm than good; the benefit side is missing from the archive's evidence.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

دراسات علمية تؤكد ما طرحه د. ضياء العوضي

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

The archive's 19 chemo/radiation studies are presented on the homepage as 'scientific studies confirming what Dr. Diaa proposed'; the harm-only study selection implies that the harms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy outweigh their benefits.

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (homepage section heading above the study list)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/
Attribution uncertainty
Written by archive operators; not attributed to Elawady.
Population concerned

Cancer patients

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Studies documenting late effects confirm Dr. Diaa's position (which, in his videos, is to avoid chemotherapy and radiotherapy).

2. What is demonstrably correct?

The late effects are real and correctly reported in most cases (C-CHM-01 to C-CHM-06). The archive narrative itself states that chemotherapy and radiotherapy 'have saved millions of lives' and that its text 'is not a call to refuse treatment' - this is fair and should be acknowledged.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The bibliography quantifies only harms. Several of the archive's own studies report benefits that are not mentioned: trastuzumab halved recurrence and reduced deaths by a third (A-CHM-05); tamoxifen's net benefit 'greatly outweighs' its risk (A-CHM-08); most second cancers are not due to radiotherapy (A-CHM-07); testicular cancer has 95% 10-year survival (A-CHM-14); late mortality halved with modified treatment (A-CHM-11). Independent evidence: modern chemotherapy reduces breast-cancer mortality by about one-third with lower overall mortality (I-CHM-01); radiotherapy halves recurrence (I-CHM-02); alternative-only treatment of curable cancers was associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of death (I-CHM-03). The harm studies therefore do not 'confirm' a position against these treatments.

4. What remains unclear?

Whether readers interpret the page as a recommendation to refuse treatment is not known.

5. Which studies support it?

Harms: A-CHM-01..A-CHM-19. Partial support for scepticism: across all adult cancers, cytotoxic chemotherapy alone was estimated to account for about 2% of 5-year survival (I-CHM-123; a population share that includes many patients who never need chemotherapy); many new cancer drugs approved in Europe 2009-13 lacked proof of survival or quality-of-life benefit (I-CHM-124); old-technique postmastectomy radiotherapy increased overall mortality in low-risk node-negative women (RR 1.23, 1.02-1.49; I-CHM-102), which is why guidelines do not offer it to low-risk patients (NICE NG101).

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-CHM-01, I-CHM-02, I-CHM-03, I-CHM-04, I-CHM-05, I-CHM-12; I-CHM-101 (anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy: fewer recurrences and breast-cancer deaths; about one extra AML per 700 women; no excess non-breast-cancer death); I-CHM-102 (postmastectomy radiotherapy in node-positive women: 20-year breast-cancer mortality 66.4% to 58.3%); A-CHM-05, A-CHM-07, A-CHM-08, A-CHM-14; mixed A-CHM-11.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Same evidence base applies.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Same evidence base applies.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

A fair presentation should list benefit evidence (absolute survival gains) next to late effects.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

The archive's own narrative concedes the benefit, but the study list quantifies only harms; high-certainty randomised and registry evidence shows large survival benefits and higher mortality when treatment is replaced.

Source quality

Archive editorial framing.

Regional transferability

High.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Overinterpreted – A real finding exists, but the claim draws more from it than the data allow (e.g. association taken as cause, animal data applied to humans, small effect presented as large).

Research question: In patients for whom chemotherapy or radiotherapy is recommended, do the documented harms outweigh the benefits?

Research question in detail (PICO)
Population
Patients with cancer for whom chemotherapy or radiotherapy is indicated
Intervention or exposure
Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy
Comparison
No such treatment (same surgery/supportive care)
Geographic scope
universal clinical evidence; access differs by country
Outcomes
  • Overall and cancer-specific mortality
  • Recurrence
  • Treatment-related deaths and second cancers
  • Late effects

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

For patients in whom chemotherapy or radiotherapy is recommended, randomised evidence shows benefits that clearly exceed the documented harms; harms are real and are the reason treatment is risk-adapted.

Why some studies weigh more

Randomised IPD meta-analyses directly measure net effect (all-cause mortality); harm-only observational studies cannot. Morgan 2004 and Davis 2017 are legitimate but answer different questions (population share; new drugs).

Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Randomised comparisons with mortality outcomes.

Remaining uncertainty

Net benefit for low-risk patients and for some new drugs with marginal gains.

Justified conclusion

The archive's implied conclusion is not supported: documented harms do not show that indicated chemotherapy and radiotherapy do more harm than good.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

Harm studies (A-CHM-01..19) and benefit trials do not disagree: the harms are real but smaller in absolute terms than the benefits in indicated patients. Net harm appears only where baseline risk is low (I-CHM-102 node-negative subgroup), which guidelines already exclude (NICE NG101).

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Universal clinical evidence.
Eating habits
Not relevant.
Origin of the food
Not relevant.
Contaminants
Not relevant.
National production conditions
Not relevant.
Legal rules
Treatment availability and guideline adoption differ; not reviewed for Egypt.
Actual monitoring data
Egyptian childhood survival data (I-CHM-125) show high survival with standard treatment.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • NNT vs NNH – RT after BCS: NNT 6.4 (recurrence), 26 (breast cancer death), 33 (any death); modern RT NNH about 333 for cardiac death in non-smokers recalculated
  • Absolute benefit and subgroup harm – pN+: NNT 9.4 (recurrence), 12.3 (breast cancer death); pN0 overall mortality RR 1.23 (log-symmetric CI) = net harm in low-risk subgroup recalculated
  • NNT vs NNH – NNT 11.5 (concurrent regimen, recurrence) vs NNH about 677 (AML) recalculated
  • Metric interpretation – 2.3% is a population-weighted share, not an effect size in treated patients; not recalculable from abstract not recalculable from the published data
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
All-cause mortality with indicated chemotherapy/radiotherapy vs none
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Result
high

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • NICE: Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and management (NG101) (2018, last updated 14 April 2025) · Original publication
    Offer whole-breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery with clear margins; offer postmastectomy radiotherapy for node-positive disease or involved margins; do not offer postmastectomy radiotherapy to people at low risk of local recurrence; where adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated, offer a regimen containing a taxane and an anthracycline and discuss benefits and risks.
  • ESMO: Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (Loibl S et al., Ann Oncol 2024; PMID 38101773) (2024) · Original publication could not be retrieved; content not used
  • WHO: Cancer - fact sheet (2026 (page fetched 2026-10-26)) · Original publication
    Many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively; treatment usually includes surgery, radiotherapy and/or systemic therapy; some cancers such as testicular seminoma and childhood leukaemias and lymphomas have high cure rates with appropriate treatment even when spread; palliative care relieves symptoms in advanced cancer.
  • NCI: Chemotherapy to Treat Cancer (2026 (fetched 2026-10-26)) · Original publication
    Chemotherapy can be used to cure cancer, lessen the chance it will return, or stop or slow its growth, and to ease symptoms; it also harms fast-growing healthy cells, causing side effects.
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:"contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival"supporting evidence1
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:"Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency"supporting evidence2
Europe PMC26 October 2026(TITLE:"chemotherapy" OR TITLE:"cancer treatment") AND (TITLE:"more harm than good" OR TITLE:"overtreatment" OR TITLE:"futile" OR TITLE:"no survival benefit") AND PUB_YEAR:[2010 TO 2026]supporting evidence253
PubMed26 October 2026(chemotherapy[ti]) AND ("harm"[ti] OR "harms"[ti] OR "overtreatment"[ti]) AND (benefit[ti]) AND (systematic review[pt] OR meta-analysis[pt])supporting evidence0
PubMed26 October 2026"Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group"[Corporate Author] AND Lancet[ta] AND 2012:2026[dp]contradicting evidence12
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:"Early Breast Cancer Trialists" AND (anthracycline OR taxane OR radiotherapy OR mastectomy) AND PUB_YEAR:[2013 TO 2026]contradicting evidence2
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:"chemotherapy" AND TITLE:"supportive care" AND TITLE:"non-small-cell lung cancer" AND (TITLE:"meta-analysis" OR TITLE:"individual patient")contradicting evidence3
PubMed26 October 2026ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline[ti] AND early breast cancer[ti] AND 2023:2026[dp]guidelines1

Open questions

Treatment access and outcomes for adults in Egypt.

How deeply was this checked?

15 linked studies: 7 checked in full text (5 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 8 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (high)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (high)
    New IPD meta-analyses strengthen the benefit side; Morgan 2004 and Davis 2017 add legitimate nuance (small population share; uncertain benefit of some new drugs) but do not show net harm for indicated treatment. Verdict and certainty unchanged.
    New sources: I-CHM-101 I-CHM-102 I-CHM-123 I-CHM-124

In plain language

The archive's study list on chemotherapy and radiotherapy shows real side effects: heart damage, second cancers, hearing loss and others. The archive text also admits these treatments save lives. But the list contains no study that measures how many lives are saved, and the homepage calls these studies a confirmation of Dr. Diaa's views. Large trials show that chemotherapy and radiotherapy clearly reduce deaths in many cancers, and that people who replace them with alternatives die more often.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (12)

  • Chemotherapy after breast-cancer surgery reduces deaths by about a third

    EBCTCG. Lancet 2012 · PMID 22152853 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    In 123 trials with 100,000 women, modern regimens cut breast-cancer deaths by about one-third, and overall deaths fell too.

    Benefit omitted

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Compare chemotherapy regimens and no chemotherapy.

    How was the study done?

    IPD meta-analysis of RCTs.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    ~100,000 women.

    What was actually found?

    ~1/3 lower breast-cancer mortality.

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 0.64-0.78 vs none.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    For many women, chemotherapy substantially raises the chance of survival.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Trials versus no chemotherapy are old (median start 1986); a small excess of non-breast-cancer deaths (e.g. heart, leukaemia) occurred; benefit is small when baseline risk is low.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts claims that chemotherapy is useless.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Individual benefit without risk assessment.

    Scientific details →

  • Radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery halves recurrence

    EBCTCG. Lancet 2011 · PMID 22019144 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Recurrence within 10 years fell from 35% to 19%, and breast-cancer deaths within 15 years from 25% to 21%.

    Benefit omitted

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Measure radiotherapy benefit.

    How was the study done?

    IPD meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    10,801 women.

    What was actually found?

    Recurrence halved; breast-cancer deaths about one-sixth lower; deaths from any cause at 15 years 3.0 percentage points lower.

    How large was the observed effect?

    -15.7% recurrence; -3.8% death.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Radiotherapy markedly lowers the chance the cancer returns.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Older techniques; risk groups derived from the same data; in low-risk node-negative women the gain in survival was small and uncertain.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Benefit side.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Individual benefit size without risk factors.

    Scientific details →

  • Patients who used only alternative medicine for curable cancer died more often

    Johnson SB et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018 · PMID 28922780 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/djx145
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Risk of death was 2.5 times higher overall and 5.7 times higher for breast cancer.

    Refusing treatment costs lives

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Compare AM-only vs conventional treatment.

    How was the study done?

    Matched registry cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    840 matched patients.

    What was actually found?

    HR 2.50 for death.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 5.68 breast cancer.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Replacing cancer treatment with alternatives is dangerous.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts refusing therapy.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Effects of complementary approaches used alongside treatment.

    Scientific details →

  • Refusing standard cancer treatment, not complementary medicine itself, raised the risk of death

    Johnson SB et al.. JAMA Oncol 2018 · PMID 30027204 · DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2487
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Users of complementary medicine refused chemotherapy or radiotherapy far more often and had about twice the risk of death.

    Benefit of adherence

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Study CM and survival.

    How was the study done?

    Registry cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    258 vs 1,032.

    What was actually found?

    HR 2.08; explained by refusal.

    How large was the observed effect?

    5-y OS 82.2% vs 86.6%.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Diet or other approaches alongside treatment are not the problem; replacing treatment is.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts refusal advice.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causal effect of any single CM.

    Scientific details →

  • About 9 in 10 children with leukaemia now survive

    Hunger SP et al.. J Clin Oncol 2012 · PMID 22412151 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.8018
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    5-year survival in childhood ALL rose to 90.4% by 2000-2005.

    Benefit omitted

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Track ALL survival.

    How was the study done?

    Trial cohort analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    21,626.

    What was actually found?

    83.7% -> 90.4%.

    How large was the observed effect?

    +6.7 points.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Childhood leukaemia is usually curable with treatment.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Trial patients.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Benefit side.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Survival outside trials.

    Scientific details →

  • Cancer death rates in the USA keep falling

    Siegel RL et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38230766 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21820
    Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    More than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991 thanks to less smoking, earlier detection and better treatment.

    Treatment contributes to falling mortality

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Report cancer statistics.

    How was the study done?

    Registry data.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    US population.

    What was actually found?

    Declining mortality.

    How large was the observed effect?

    >4 million deaths averted.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Prevention and treatment both work.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Descriptive.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Benefit context.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Share due to treatment alone.

    Scientific details →

  • Adding trastuzumab to chemotherapy halved recurrence in HER2-positive breast cancer

    Romond EH et al.. N Engl J Med 2005 · PMID 16236738 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa052122
    Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked★ key study

    Fewer recurrences and a third fewer deaths; serious heart problems in about 3-4 in 100 treated women.

    Main result is benefit (HR 0.48; 33% fewer deaths)

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test trastuzumab added to chemotherapy.

    How was the study done?

    Two RCTs analysed jointly.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Operable HER2+ breast cancer.

    What was actually found?

    HR 0.48 for events; 33% fewer deaths.

    How large was the observed effect?

    +12% absolute DFS at 3 years.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Benefit clearly exceeds the cardiac risk for most patients; heart monitoring is needed.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Interim analysis.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Documents harm and much larger benefit.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That treatment should be avoided.

    Scientific details →

  • Only a small share of second cancers in adults is caused by radiotherapy

    Berrington de Gonzalez A et al.. Lancet Oncol 2011 · PMID 21454129 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70061-4
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    About 5 extra cancers per 1,000 treated patients within 15 years; 8% of second cancers in irradiated patients.

    Authors conclude most second cancers are not due to RT

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Estimate radiotherapy-attributable second cancers.

    How was the study done?

    SEER cohort.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    647,672 survivors.

    What was actually found?

    8% attributable; 5/1000 by 15 years.

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 1.08-1.43.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    The risk is real but small compared with the benefit of cure.

    What are the study's limitations?

    No randomisation; no data on smoking, chemotherapy or doses; treatments before 2003.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Limits the 'heavy price' framing.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Risk for an individual patient.

    Scientific details →

  • Tamoxifen raises the small risk of uterine cancer but prevents far more breast-cancer events

    Fisher B et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 · PMID 8133536 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/86.7.527
    Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    Uterine cancer about 1.6 vs 0.2 per 1,000 women per year; 38% fewer recurrence-type events.

    Authors: net benefit greatly outweighs risk

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess second cancers under tamoxifen.

    How was the study done?

    RCT vs placebo.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    2,843 + 1,220.

    What was actually found?

    RR 7.5 endometrial cancer; benefit outweighs.

    How large was the observed effect?

    1.6 vs 0.2/1000/year.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Report abnormal bleeding during tamoxifen; continue therapy.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Few events; data-integrity issue.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mixed.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That tamoxifen is net harmful.

    Scientific details →

  • Testicular cancer survivors face late effects but almost all survive

    Fung C et al.. Adv Urol 2018 · PMID 29670654 · DOI 10.1155/2018/8671832
    Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

    10-year relative survival is 95%; heart disease and second cancers are the main serious late effects.

    95% 10-year relative survival

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Review late effects.

    How was the study done?

    Narrative review.

    What was actually found?

    Multiple late effects.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Long-term check-ups and healthy lifestyle.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Narrative review without systematic search or quality appraisal; much evidence from older treatment eras.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mixed.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Quantitative risks.

    Scientific details →

  • Chemotherapy for early breast cancer: benefits and risks in 100,000 women

    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Lancet 2023 · PMID 37061269 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00285-4
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy lowered recurrence and breast-cancer death; it caused about one extra leukaemia per 700 women and no measurable excess heart deaths within about 5 years.

    Benefit of chemotherapy clearly exceeds the measured harms in randomised data.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Weigh benefits and risks of anthracycline-containing chemotherapy

    How was the study done?

    Pooled individual data from randomised trials

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    18,103 women in the main comparison; about 100,000 overall

    What was actually found?

    Fewer recurrences (RR 0.86) and fewer breast-cancer deaths; AML 0.18% vs 0.03%

    How large was the observed effect?

    10-year recurrence 16.4% vs 18.9%; up to 8.7 points fewer recurrences with concurrent anthracycline

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    For every leukaemia caused, roughly 18 recurrences are prevented in this data set

    What are the study's limitations?

    Short follow-up for heart effects; high-risk heart patients often excluded

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Harms of chemotherapy are real (AML) but small compared with the benefit; this contradicts the idea that harms outweigh benefits

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot quantify heart failure 15-20 years after treatment

    Scientific details →

  • Radiotherapy after breast removal: 20-year results of 22 trials

    EBCTCG; McGale P et al.. Lancet 2014 · PMID 24656685 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60488-8
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    In women with cancer in the lymph nodes, radiotherapy prevented about 1 in 10 recurrences and about 1 in 12 breast-cancer deaths; in low-risk women with old techniques it did more harm than good.

    Radiotherapy lowers recurrence and breast-cancer death in node-positive women; also documents net harm in low-risk women, which supports risk-adapted use, not refusal.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test whether radiotherapy after mastectomy saves lives

    How was the study done?

    Pooled individual data from 22 randomised trials

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    8135 women, 1964-86

    What was actually found?

    Benefit in node-positive disease; overall mortality increase in node-negative women after full axillary surgery

    How large was the observed effect?

    pN+: recurrence 62.5% -> 51.9%; breast-cancer death 66.4% -> 58.3%

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Radiotherapy helps when recurrence risk is substantial and can harm when it is low

    What are the study's limitations?

    Old techniques; modern doses are lower

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts blanket claims that radiotherapy does more harm than good; supports careful selection

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate to high

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot give exact absolute benefits for today's patients

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (3)

  • Late deaths among childhood-cancer survivors have fallen as treatment became gentler

    Armstrong GT et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 26761625 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1510795
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    15-year death rate after surviving 5 years dropped from 12.4% to 6.0% between the 1970s and 1990s.

    Oncology reduces late effects

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Track late mortality across eras.

    How was the study done?

    Cohort, 34,033 survivors.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    34,033.

    What was actually found?

    41% of late deaths health-related; mortality halved over time.

    How large was the observed effect?

    12.4% -> 6.0%.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Late effects are real and being reduced.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational era comparison; cannot measure improvements in medical care; treatment data imputed for 29%; shorter follow-up for the 1990s.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports burden and shows progress.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That treatment should be avoided.

    Scientific details →

  • How much does chemotherapy add to cancer survival overall?

    Morgan G et al.. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2004 · PMID 15630849 · DOI 10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007
    Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Across all adult cancer patients, the authors estimated that about 2% are alive at 5 years because of chemotherapy alone.

    Supports that cytotoxic chemotherapy contributes a small share of population cancer survival; does not support 'harms outweigh benefits' for indicated patients.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Estimate population-level contribution of chemotherapy

    How was the study done?

    Modelling from trials and registries

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    22 cancer types

    What was actually found?

    About 2.3% of all patients

    How large was the observed effect?

    2.1-2.3%

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Chemotherapy is not the main reason most people survive cancer (surgery and early detection are)

    What are the study's limitations?

    Denominator includes patients who never needed chemotherapy

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Gives partial support to scepticism, but not to refusing indicated treatment

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Low

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show chemotherapy is useless for a given patient

    Scientific details →

  • Many new cancer drugs approved without proof of longer or better life

    Davis C et al.. BMJ 2017 · PMID 28978555 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.j4530
    Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Of 68 new cancer-drug approvals in Europe, only about half showed a survival or quality-of-life benefit after 5 years.

    Shows that benefit of some new cancer drugs is unproven or marginal; does not apply to proven curative regimens.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Check evidence behind new cancer drugs

    How was the study done?

    Cohort of EMA approvals

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    68 indications 2009-13

    What was actually found?

    Many approvals with uncertain benefit

    How large was the observed effect?

    35% had OS benefit at approval

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Ask what a new drug adds; proven standard treatments are different

    What are the study's limitations?

    New drugs only

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports scepticism

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Does not apply to established curative chemotherapy or radiotherapy

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Same evidence base applies.

Egypt

Same evidence base applies.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false Documented side effects do not show that chemotherapy and radiotherapy do more harm than good; the benefit side is missing from the archive's evidence.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.. EBCTCG. Lancet 2012 · PMID 22152853 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5
  2. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials.. EBCTCG. Lancet 2011 · PMID 22019144 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2
  3. Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.. Johnson SB et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018 · PMID 28922780 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/djx145
  4. Complementary Medicine, Refusal of Conventional Cancer Therapy, and Survival Among Patients With Curable Cancers.. Johnson SB et al.. JAMA Oncol 2018 · PMID 30027204 · DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2487
  5. Improved survival for children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia between 1990 and 2005: a report from the children's oncology group.. Hunger SP et al.. J Clin Oncol 2012 · PMID 22412151 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.8018
  6. Cancer statistics, 2024.. Siegel RL et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38230766 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21820
  7. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer.. Romond EH et al.. N Engl J Med 2005 · PMID 16236738 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa052122
  8. Proportion of second cancers attributable to radiotherapy treatment in adults: a cohort study in the US SEER cancer registries.. Berrington de Gonzalez A et al.. Lancet Oncol 2011 · PMID 21454129 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70061-4
  9. Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14.. Fisher B et al.. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 · PMID 8133536 · DOI 10.1093/jnci/86.7.527
  10. Toxicities Associated with Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Long-Term Testicular Cancer Survivors.. Fung C et al.. Adv Urol 2018 · PMID 29670654 · DOI 10.1155/2018/8671832
  11. Anthracycline-containing and taxane-containing chemotherapy for early-stage operable breast cancer: a patient-level meta-analysis of 100 000 women from 86 randomised trials.. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Lancet 2023 · PMID 37061269 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00285-4
  12. Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials.. EBCTCG; McGale P et al.. Lancet 2014 · PMID 24656685 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60488-8
  13. Reduction in Late Mortality among 5-Year Survivors of Childhood Cancer.. Armstrong GT et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 26761625 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1510795
  14. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.. Morgan G et al.. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2004 · PMID 15630849 · DOI 10.1016/j.clon.2004.06.007
  15. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13.. Davis C et al.. BMJ 2017 · PMID 28978555 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.j4530

← Back to overview