‘You have cancer.’
That statement coming from your medical doctor or oncologist is often thought of as a death sentence.
That fear is due to the short-term high death rates from most cancers, despite, in many cases, the application of expensive and extensive conventional cancer treatments.
Conventional cancer treatment consists usually of surgery, radiotherapy, hormone treatment (in hormone-dependant cancers) and chemotherapy.
These methods do not have a real ‘cure’ rate of more than 5% of patients except in a few rare cancers.
Most of us know people who have died of cancer despite intensive, and usually very invasive and pervasive (with respect to impacts on bodily systems), medical treatments.
The public have little understanding of the disease and why medical treatment is not very successful.
Why is there an alarming increase in cancer deaths today?
And, perhaps more importantly, why is there a near-monopoly on treatment in the conventional cancer industry when its performance is so poor?
Inform yourself fast
There is an enormous amount of published information on cancer treatment.
This article is not a definitive description of cancer. I seek, rather, to give the public and practitioners an idea of the number of choices and developments that exist in this field.
A person with cancer in consultation with professionals has to choose the best treatment for their individual cancer. Life-altering decisions have to be made.
While oncologists and their allopathic colleagues may well be able to describe the why and wherefores of conventional treatments – and these explanations can easily be found with an internet search – I would rather like to air the views of some of the unconventional/alternative cancer treatments in this article.
After the diagnosis, what next?
Are you aware of the more than 300 alternative treatment modalities that exist? Most of the time the media is negative about alternative approaches to dealing with cancer.
Does one then merely go along with conventional treatment to keep your doctor friends and family happy?
This sort of very difficult decision often comes in the midst of the overwhelming fear, denial shock and confusion which follow the dreaded ‘cancer’ diagnosis.
Added to this is the plain fact, as can be demonstrated with and substantiated by even a brief study on the subject, that alternative cancer treatments are frequently banned and/or made illegal, as well as routinely vilified, once they break ground and start to deliver success.
Laetrile is a good example of this.
Some of these alternative treatments really work well on particular cancers types, while others are based on nonsense – but simply taking the conventional medical position in any particular case is not going to tell you which is which, due the inherent bias involved.
What stage of cancer has been diagnosed?
There are four stages, starting at one and rising to four.
Certain doctors use a combination of alternative and conventional treatments depending on which stage of cancer the person has.
Stage four (often written in medical literature in the Latin form of iv, is cancer that:
- has spread throughout the body;
- is fast-growing;
- is a high-fatality cancer;
- leaves the patient with a year or less to live;
- is any form of bone cancer; and
- is any tumour that could block the basic functions of the body.
In other words the life of the patient is at imminent risk.
This is the stage where combinations of conventional and alternative cancer treatments may be used.
I know that it is tricky to get the professionals to work together.
Who’s the boss? Who takes responsibility, ultimately, especially where entirely different modalities are at work and in a situation where the engaged professionals may well find each other’s approaches at the least questionable?
The answer, typically, usually excludes the most important person in the equation – the person with the cancer in question.
The point here is that conventional approaches almost always involve the assumption that ‘doctor knows best’ and the patient must just shut and do what their medical specialist tells them to do.
There may well be a certain amount of justification for the assumption of inadequate knowledge on the part of the patient, but the second part doesn’t necessarily follow – and even the ignorance of the patient may frequently be address, should the patient want to, and has the capacity, take part of the burden of responsibility of their treatment on their own shoulders.
Emphasis is almost always placed on how the various modalities which may be considered allegedly or actually counteract each other.
True in some cases, but they can in fact be in contra-indication of one another such that if one approach is used to excludes another.
But with the right knowledge, different treatments emergent from completely different fields or approaches to health may actually enhance each other too.
Even within the oainstream medical field, things are not necessarily clear-cut either.
For example, Dr Glen Warner, oncologist: ‘We have a multibillion industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain.
Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison are better than three doses of that poison.’
Dr Robert Atkins, MD adds: ‘There have been many cancer cures and all have been ruthlessly and systematically suppressed with a Gestapo-like thoroughness by the cancer establishment.
The cancer establishment is not the too shadowy association of the American Cancer Association, the leading hospitals, the National Cancer Association and the FDA.
The shadowy part is the fact that these respected institutions are very much dominated by members and friends of members of the pharmaceutical industry who profit so incredibly much from our profession-wide obsession with chemo.’
The last thing oncologists want to admit is that the population is suffering from poisoning from hundreds of carcinogenic compounds and that this is a large part of what is driving the epidemic in cancer. Oncologists use radiation and chemotherapy, agents that cause cancer to treat it.
Dr Mark Sircus
There are many contributing factors when it comes to cancer (which is not one disease but many under one name) so I will just mention each subject by way of an introduction to it only, with further research encouraged by those interested.
Chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields (electrical wiring in our homes and offices, TVs, computers, cell phones, electric blankets, microwave ovens, wi-fi, electric sub-stations, electric power lines) all influence tumour growth.
This is an area of growing concern and one which ordinary householders and those without any medical training can take some steps to help reduce exposure to such fields by, among other things, ensuring the electrical wiring in walls is not producing electromagnetic fields by simply switching off the electrical equipment being run with that particular circuit.
Other major causes or potential causes of cancer-inducing conditions in the body include (the list is long):
- geopathic stress;
- sick building syndrome, ionising radiation from X-rays, computer monitors, TVs, fluorescent lights, nuclear radiation of any kind; a wide range of industrial toxins;
- many pesticide/herbicide residues;
- polluted, chlorinated, fluoridated water (the debate around fluoridation an its effects on the body continues although there is mounting evidence that excess fluoride in the body is much more harmful than the relatively minor benefit of having healthier teeth);
- hormone replacement therapy;
- immune suppressive drugs;
- possibly irradiated foods (debate on this subject also is ongoing);
- some food additives;
- mercury exposure (not all agree on this point though there is general acknowledgement that mercury is severely toxic and should be strictly avoided, regardless of its roll in helping trigger cancer, or otherwise);
- poor diet and nutrient deficiencies;
- chronic stress;
- ‘toxic’ emotions;
- depressed thyroid function;
- intestinal toxicity;
- some parasites;
- some viruses;
- free radicals;
- blocked detox pathways (as in underarm anti-perspirants blocking the release of toxins from the lymphatic system);
- cellular oxygen deficiency;
- cellular terrain/vitality levels.
- Presence of oncogenes (cancer triggers) as opposed to anti-oncogenes;
- genetic predisposition;
- miasm (in homeopathic terms, a miasm is considered an energetic predisposing condition in the same way as a genetic predisposition can lead to cancer);
- some vaccines (a highly contentious possibility);
- GM foods (proven in some cases in rats in at least one long-term study but not definitive proof of this linkage has not yet been established in humans);
- and many carcinogenic household products, personal care products and gardening products.
In fact we are surrounded by or infused through with all of these in varying degrees.
What a challenge to our bodies. No wonder there is so much cancer on earth today.