Right now, I am really happy you are not a doctor (specifically an oncologist)... you would kill a lot of patients.
If I were an oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of my patients would be dead within 5 years.
According to that same article, in the 1930's before modern oncology, 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years. 1 in 4 would people would have survived by their own natural survival mechanisms without any medical help at all.
Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whooping 15% survival rate, and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. So how great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?
How great is modern oncology at fighting cancer? Not great. No one said it was. That's why there is constant research to find better ways to fight cancer. That said, modern oncology treatments are more effective the alternative treatments (like garlic) pushed by those who distrust modern medicine. In spite of individual success stories, a higher percentage of patients die under alternative treatments than through standard oncology. While the success stories fuel their propoganda, they conveniently ignore the deaths...
Cancer is natural. Your body produces (on average) 300 cancer cells a day. In a healthy body, our natural defenses recognize these abnormal cells that divide uncontrollably and destroy them. It is when these cells multiply so much that they overwhelm our defenses that the disease 'cancer' emerges and can lead to death. Our body's natural defenses do not go away and continue to fight the cancer. In some cases, simple changes in diet (like consuming garlic, which has been shown to have anti-carcenogenic propoerties) that can boost your natural defenses can be enough to push you into recovery. In most cases, however, you need more help in order to fight.
Chemotherapy. One of the most common forms of modern oncology treatment. Many complain that it is poison that we are putting into our bodies and not helpful. Yes, it is a lot of bad stuff (which is why you would not use it if you didn't have cancer), but the properties of the items in the concoction is why it is effective. It targets dividing cells. Since most cells in our bodies are not dividing (there is always division going on, but cells are not in a constant state of division), it does not affect most of our body. Cancer cells are in a constant state of division and are therefore targeted by the treatment. Other parts of the body are in constant states of cell division though, so we see side-effects: hair follicles, which is why chemotherapy patients lose their hair, gastro-intestinal linings, which is why they have nausea and diarhea, sex-organs, which is why chemotherapy can cause sterility and early menopause and bone marrow, which is why patients can have low red-blood counts. The effects on the red-blood counts, as well as the damage chemotherapy causes the liver and kidneys, is why there is a decent amount of space in between treatments.
Cancer is a nasty beast. The earlier the cancer is discovered, the better the survival rate.
That is not to say that alternative treatments do not have their benefits. Like your original post, where you talked about garlic. Garlic has been definitively shown to have anti-cancer affects and will certainly boost your body's ability to fight cancer. However, to call it a cure is deceptive. It is not a cure. At best, it is a boost to your body's defense against cancer.