But Are These Really Myths...?
I recently came across this article citing six stubborn myths about cancer. It is very typical of many such pieces that seek to discredit alternative views.
It is very common to see wise-guys online and in the press desperately trying to crush the idea of alternative cancer treatments, and defend the toxic conventional treatments.
But it is common practise to pick their facts carefully, and choose the most questionable topics. So lets see what this guy has to say in his broadside...
David Robert Grimes of The Guardian writes:
Six Stubborn Myths About Cancer(David Robert Grimes is a physicist and researcher at Oxford University who also writes for The Irish Times.)
Let's look at his claimed "myths" about cancer...
Original article The Guardian Online here:
Cancer rates are rising: (is this really a myth???)
He says...This statement is true in one respect but it is often framed as "proof-positive" that our world is becoming more carcinogenic. Age is the single biggest risk factor associated with developing cancer and as we're living longer it's hardly surprising that rates are increasing. This merely means we are now less likely to die of the host of plagues and injuries that ravaged generations before us. What is heartening is that survival rates have also improved substantially due to more effective diagnostic techniques and treatments.
Quote:"Age is the single biggest risk factor associated with developing cancer and as we're living longer it's hardly surprising that rates are increasing."
Age may explain part of it, but not all. Ageing cannot explain the massive increase in cancer rates since the early 20th Century, as I explain below. It is a myth that people rarely lived to a ripe old age in those days....as I will prove.
In the UK, for example, statistics show that about 66% of breast cancer victims are under 70. One third of cases over 70. (Proof that he vast majority are not exactly old)
Cancer in Ireland 2013 - annual report of the National Cancer Registry
"This report highlights the continuing increase in the cancer burden in Ireland. The number of cancer cases continues to increase by 3% annually and the number of deaths by about 1% annually"......... - See report
Go to any cancer ward, like I have, and you will see a majority of people well under 60. Notice the shaven heads or women with scarves but no hair in your area. They are seldom old people or pensioners. And the following facts (regarding breast cancer) tend to make my case. So much for being a MYTH!
"Breast cancer 'rising in under-40s' across Europe"
Or we could look at a report in his own newspaper The Guardian:
"World cancer toll is on the rise, says research"
Quote: "These so-called "non-communicable diseases", which have all taken off as sedentary lifestyles, junk food, smoking and drinking have spread around the planet, are already a massive burden on rich countries and are steadily becoming one in poorer countries, too.
The incidence rate is rising fast in the developing world but is still markedly lower in Africa, where 88 per 100,000 people got cancer, than in North America and western Europe, where 334 and 335 people respectively per 100,000 were diagnosed."
The Guardian clearly confirms that cancer rates are rising relentlessly below.
This shows that in less developed parts of the world, such as Africa, deaths from cancer are as low as 5%......compared to the UK were it's 27% of all deaths. (Nearly 30% of all deaths are due to cancer in the UK!)
(and this despite having FREE 'state of the art' cancer treatment in the UK)
Note: The fact that smoking has been cut out by many people has helped to bring down lung cancer cases, (and also other cancers) which will have a significant (positive) effect on the recent statistics.
The 19th Century, Old People, and Modern Day Celebrities...Fact: Many people reached a ripe old age in the 19th Century, as proven with one look at the record of artists and writers etc from that era, or other well documented people. Artists records show that a huge number made it to 75 or 80 or there abouts, and many lived well beyond that age. Despite that fact, cancer was a rare disease.
Note: The much quoted mortality rate of Victorian times implies dying at a young age.... (say 45 or 50) was commonplace, but this is a statistical illusion due to the fact that many children died very young of now preventable diseases and squalid conditions. Once into adulthood, for normal healthy people the mortality rate was similar to people of today, apart from obvious advances in medical science to prolong life a bit. And cancer was a RARE DISEASE until well into the 20th Century...
....so much so, a case would attract doctors and medical students from miles away to come see this rare medical phenomenon!
Today, experts assert that 1 in 2 men, and 1 in 3 women will get cancer. In contrast, in Victorian times, doctors talked of cancer as a RARE disease...and by 1900 the cancer rate was 1 in 33.
Examples from history: Some well known artists that lived to an age considered above average today!
Famous artist from centuries ago:Michelangelo (6 March 1475 – 18 February 1564), died aged nearly 89, - Not bad considering he was born over 500 years ago!
Titian ditto....................... (1488 -- 1576) Circa 88
David Teniers the Younger (1610 – 1690) " 79
Goya................................... (1746 -- 1828) " 82
J.M.W.Turner................... (1771 --1851) " 80
Let's Look at Artists Born in the 19th Century.
The Impressionists:Claude Monet..................... (1840 – 1926) Circa 86 Friends / contemporaries
Pierre-Auguste Renoir...... (1841 -- 1919) " 78 (Impressionists)
Edgar Degas....................... (1834 -- 1917) " 82
Philip Wilson Steer............. (1860 -- 1942) " 82
Mary Cassatt........................ (1844 -- 1926) " 82
Pre-Raphaelites:William Holman Hunt........ (1827 -- 1910) " 82 Friends / contemporaries
William Powell Frith......... (1819 -- 1909) " 90 (Pre-raphaelites)
George Frederick Watts.... (1817 -- 1904) " 87
Arthur Hughes.............. (1832 -- 1915) " 83
Slade School:Philip Wilson Steer............. (1860 -- 1943) " 83 Friends / contemporaries
Walter Sickert..................... (1860 -- 1942) " 82 (Slade School)
Newlyn School:Stanhope Forbes................. (1857 -- 1947) " 89 Friends / contemporaries
Frederick Hall.................... (1860 -- 1948) " 88 (Newlyn School)
Harold Knight..................... (1874 -- 1961) " 87
Lamorna Birch................... (1869 -- 1955) " 86 Living much of their lives
Sir Alfred Munnings.......... (1878 -- 1959) " 81 in rural Cornwall.
And associated female artist...
Dame Laura Knight........... (1877 -- 1970) " 92
OLD PEOPLE ARE NOT A MODERN INVENTION!!
So as you can see, a good percentage of people were living to a ripe old age. Therefore, logically speaking, there must have been many more people who lived to well past middle age....the age where cancer (in modern times) commonly happens and kills countless thousands. Yet cancer was a scarce disease back in those times!
This is the vital point.
Although not necessarily typical, the above examples prove that many lived to be a very significant age in previous centuries, yet cancer was a rare disease.
It is interesting to note that of these [very small] distinct groups of world famous artists, such as "The Impressionists" and "The Pre-Raphaelite" group, etc, a good percentage lived to an age well beyond the average today. (In the U.S. the current male life expectancy is 76 and in the UK it's 79)
So, as we see, (like today) a fair percentage of people in the 19th century could, and did, live to 80 and beyond. (especially the better off) This means there must have been a considerable "population" of folk who lived well beyond 50 or 60, and plenty of elderly people living in that era. Despite this, cancer was a rarity. (unlike today).
It is highly misleading to suggest that the current high cancer rates are all due to the fact that we - as a society - are living longer. Tell that to all the thousands of young people who have been afflicted with cancer!
Finally, imagine a small town entirely occupied by all the famous celebrities and stars we all know of.
How big would that population be? Obviously not a huge number.
Now think of all the people amongst that population that have either had cancer or died from cancer. Stars like Kylie Minogue Sharon Osbourne, Linda McCartney, Robin Gibb, Jade Goody, Christina Applegate, Sheryl Crow, Olivia Newton-John, Melanie Griffith, Peter Jennings, Paul Newman, Patrick Swayze, Sydney Pollack, Michael Crichton, Steve Jobs, to name just a few, and there are obviously many many others, - even including sports stars. These people are not elderly!!
Conclusion: If measuring whether cancer rates are RISING, it depends where you are measuring from! If from the early 20th Century, or even the mid 20th Century, then it patently has increased massively. Measuring the latest stats, taking into account social changes, - such as the big cut in smoking, and the habit of frying oneself in the sun, etc, then one may be able to claim that things have improved a little in recent times. (mainly due to people avoiding cancer promoting activities) But the important BIG PICTURE across many decades is patently one of dramatic increase....and it continues across the world, (as reported above) as other countries adopt our disastrous eating habits, toxic technologies, and way of life.
Sharks don't get cancer:
This factoid has burnt its way into the public consciousness to such an extent that nothing short of a cultural lobotomy can erase it. The perceived immunity of sharks to cancer has led to their slaughter to harvest the allegedly curative cartilage; not only is this no good for sharks, it's no good for humans either. Sharks do get cancer – indeed, pretty much all complex multicellular organisms do, from dogs to elephants. The myth that "sharks don't get cancer" was popularised in a 1992 book of the same name by Dr William Lane. It is estimated that North American shark populations have shrunk by 80% in the past decade, with over 200,000 sharks harvested every month to create a pill that doesn't work. It will perhaps come as no surprise to the cynical reader that Dr Lane has built business interests in shark fishing and cartilage pills.
This may or may not be true. But the news story below suggests they have a remarkable immune system, and thus significant immunity to cancer.
Note: There are many superb natural plant based substances that help control or fight cancer, and not many books on alternative cancer treatments often advise shark cartilage or support the concept. Tho some may. I certainly do not. I have seen no good evidence to convince me of its effectiveness as a cancer treatment.
Forget sharks....there have been populations of HUMANS that famously don't get cancer....known as the Hunzas from the north east Pakistan region, despite the fact that they are also famous for a living to great age, (over 100 years) which also undermines the argument that cancer rates are higher today due mainly to living longer!
IN FACT SCIENTISTS ARE NOW DISCOVERING THAT SHARKS MAY PROVIDE A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH WITH TREATING CANCER! SEE BELOW.
According to the Daily Mail,
"How SHARKS could be the key to beating breast cancer: Scientists hope creatures' antibodies will yield new wonder drug."
The Aberdeen University researchers believe the powerful immune system of the shark may hold the answer.
One in four of the 44,000 British women diagnosed with breast cancer each year have this HER2-positive form of breast cancer. But Herceptin doesn’t work in all cases and sometimes it only offers brief respite, so new treatments are still needed........."
Here we see evidence that SCIENTISTS actually believe that there IS potential for a successful cancer treatment based on the apparent "myths" relating to sharks. - And that's a FACTIOD, (Whatever that is!!)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2433593/Sharks-antibodies-yield-new-cancer-drug.html
Cancer is a modern disease:
Egyptian doctors were recording cancers of the breast sometime between 1500 and 3000BC. By 400BC, the Greek physician Hippocrates (he of the oath) had distinguished between benign and malignant tumours. (Incidentally, the early Greek scientists of this period called it cancer because they thought clusters of tumours looked like crab legs. If this seems a slightly odd simile, bear in mind Greek medics were not familiar with dissection and so could only observe protruding tumours.)
The reality is that cancer is a truly ancient disease, and has likely existed since the dawn of humanity and before it in the primate species from which we are descended.
Another straw man to knock over? Well done. Obviously when referring to cancer as a "modern disease", they are referring to the EPIDEMIC....and recent forecasts (for the current generation) that cancer will soon be afflicting over ONE IN EVERY THREE PEOPLE ....not the actuality of cancer as a disease. Cancer may have been apparent in ancient times, but is barely mentioned - and it obviously would have been throughout the centuries had it been responsible for killing a large percentage of the population!
11 Million Afflicted with Cancer in USA at Present"About 11 million Americans alive today—1 in 30 people–are either currently undergoing treatment for cancer or have done so in the past." Wikipedia
So in fact it IS a "modern disease" in the obvious context of the modern day epidemic, affecting children parents and grand parents alike. That is no myth.
Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are poisonsHe calls this a myth!!!
In a manner of speaking, yes – that's the idea. Both radiotherapy and chemotherapy damage DNA. Tumour cells are mutants and while they proliferate far more than they ought, they are much more susceptible to damage and much less likely to be repaired successfully than surrounding healthy tissue. As a consequence, a well-planned radiotherapy dose is concentrated on areas where tumours have been located, preferentially killing tumour cells and largely sparing healthy tissue and organs. Chemotherapy targets cells that divide rapidly, such as cancer cells. This can also affect non-tumour cells that divide rapidly, such as bone marrow and hair follicles. The aim of both therapies is to kill off tumour cells while ideally sparing non-tumour cells and this is why they are effective and why they have side-effects. The "poison" mantra is often a banner hoisted by those championing some alleged alternative treatment with no side effects, conveniently ignoring the fact that a cancer treatment without side effects is unlikely to be killing any cancer cells.
Is this for real? It is indisputable that chemotherapy is highly toxic, and thus is a poison, It is also carcinogenic. SO HOW CAN YOU CALL THAT STATEMENT A MYTH? Both these things require great care when handling and if chemo is spilled in the hospital, it requires a team wearing bio-hazard suits to clean it up! You say it's toxic ...."in a manner of speaking" but both are undeniably TOXIC. Radiation is patently toxic, and experts assert that it must be guarded against and avoided by all possible measures. Why? Because of the known and well documented risk of causing cancer. Treating patients with radiation also has a range of side effects too.
You could argue that it is highly toxic, but is nevertheless well worth the risks. That seems to be your key point. But you must be honest. The fact that both chemo and radiation are POISONS is not a myth...its an indisputable FACT.
The second point infers that cancer needs to be poisoned out of existence. That is one way, but carries many dreadful side-effects that he tries to make light of,....and the cancer often comes back in a far more aggressive form! This is admitted by medical science. Again indisputable.
15,000 killed by chemotherapy every year in UK alone...
Study confirms chemotherapy boosts cancer growth.
(Incidentally, the alternative approach is normally to eliminate the causes and drivers that create the tumours of cancer out of existence...not simply attack the cancer tumour.)
Yes, (after a great deal of damage and sickness) a number survive and live for 5 years or more and that's great....for them. But many others die sooner than they would have done if left alone. And many die largely due to the ravages of endless bouts of chemotherapy and radiation.
(A "medication" that kills thousands [directly due to toxic effect] even though given at the correct dose by expert specialists.)
Many others, including myself, have avoided chemotherapy in favour of Alternative non-toxic cancer treatments...and are still around many years later. Cancer requires an ideal environment to flourish. Deny that, (by a number of key methods), and you start to turn the battle. Secondly, there are many substances that kill cancer cells, including curcumin (from turmeric) and B17 from apricot kernels, all of which are not poisonous to the human body, unless taken in huge quantities of course.
So the notion that you must attack cancer cells with deadly poisons and hope for the best... is plain wrong, and a concept that history will likely condemn as mass slaughter in years to come.
There is a cure, but big pharma is suppressing it
The assertion that there is a "supressed" cure for cancer is a depressingly common one. A number of documentaries purport to investigate alternative cancer cures, from healing oils to homeopathy, all allegedly suppressed by the "cancer industry" to protect its cash cow. Cancer is caused by the unregulated division of mutant cells, which can invade adjacent tissue or travel through the body in a process called metastasis. Because cancer can arise from practically any type of cell mutation, there is a huge range of malignancies – some respond well to surgery, others to radiotherapy, and others to chemotherapy. Some tumours are too advanced to cure, but can be treated palliatively with such interventions. The prognosis and survival rates for different cancers vary hugely – slow growing, promptly diagnosed and easily accessed tumours tend to have a good prognosis. Non-melanoma skin cancer and breast cancers, for example, usually have relatively good prognoses. Others tumours grow rapidly or present with clinical symptoms only when quite advanced, rendering them harder to treat. To add to this complexity, one must also consider that each cancer is unique to that patient because it arises from mutations in their own cells. Consequently, the idea of a single magic bullet to treat all these forms with different causes, pathologies and responses is extremely far-fetched and should be treated with scepticism.
So too should conspiracy claims, such as this gem from the infamous bastion of misinformation Natural News:
… the cancer industry world-wide is estimated at a 200 billion dollar a year industry. There are many in various associated positions within that industry who would be without a job if that cash flow dried up suddenly with the news that there are cheaper, less harmful, and more efficacious remedies available. Big Pharmacy would virtually vanish.
This charge fails even a courtesy examination. If big pharma did possess a cure for cancer, then surely their senior executives and researchers would never die of the disease? And a secret like that is impossible to contain for long, no matter how unethical the companies involved. But the final nail in the outlandish coffin of this argument is the flashing-light-adorned-elephant dancing in the centre of the room: if there were an effective cure for cancer, why on earth would a pharmaceutical company NOT sell it?
This argument ignores the fact that alternative cancer treatments are the Cinderella or poor relative that gets no serious backing, and no real money. The medical industry is clearly wedded to drugs, and drugs on top of drugs...which make vast profits. Almost all alternative treatments are based on NATURAL substances etc that cannot be patented. Thus there is zero incentive for big pharma to invest countless millions required to fully research and test such treatments.
So the answer to the question relating to an elephant with flashing lights in the centre of the room.... is...... they would NOT sell it....because it cannot be patented! and thus would involve massive expense, and no possible profit. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT NATURAL SUBSTANCES CANNOT BE PATENTED? Without PATENTS, the company would own nothing. Without such protection, other companies worldwide would cash in on their discoveries....and at zero cost to themselves.
I do not believe evil men run medicine. But they have every incentive to invent new improved drugs, and nothing to gain from natural substances. They have unshakable faith in science and technology to crack the code for cancer, and have no faith or understanding regarding alternative natural treatments and methods.
Another problem is that when they do test natural substances, they focus on just one fundamental element - in isolation, and if that substance doesn't show great promise, then it is discounted, and shelved. However, a truly reliable alternative cancer treatment requires a complete PROTOCOL of elements, including a cancer diet, which all work together to induce a positive healing effect against cancer. It is a formula, or recipe, not just one substance on its own in isolation.
As to the nature of cancer itself, yes there may be different varieties or forms, but if (as he states) they have the Same basic cause...
"Cancer is caused by unregulated division of mutant cells" (quote)
then why cannot they have the same basic solution?
i.e. If (largely speaking) cancer cells have the same common cause, (initiation process) why cannot they have the same common solution? (terminating process)
Example: you could have 20 different types of mould growing in a room, yet the solution for ALL would be to reverse the ideal conditions for mould growth, such as cold and damp and lack of ventilation, etc....irrespective of type. With a complete change of environment, the moulds would become unable to easily thrive, and likely die off.
However...if your only solution to cancer is to poison it to death, then yes you will probably need a wide variety of different drugs with specific action, targeted at the specific types of cancer. However, that is a self-fulfilling prophesy...based on the chosen (toxic drug) methodology.
But... if your strategy is totally different, and based on starving the cancer of its vital biological needs, and creating a very unfavourable environment, and building the immune system, then there is no need to treat one type of cancer much differently from another other type. Its survival can be terminated by a totally different approach, that doesn't involve life-threatening toxic substances. (Not to mention chemo failure rates.)
According to top experts, ALL cancers have the same basic primitive biological needs....thriving on sugar (glucose) for its energy needs, instead of oxygen, (as normal cells do) thus making oxygen its Nemesis..
Cancer can be cured by X
The spectrum of alleged cancer cures is alarmingly wide, but typically the product is "natural" and easily acquired – for example, apricot seeds, graviola, mistletoe and even baking soda have been championed as cancer cures despite little or no clinical evidence.
Exotic combinations of everything from herbs to vitamins are sold and marketed as potential cures, but there is simply no evidence that they work. The FDA keeps
Exotic combinations of everything from herbs to vitamins are sold and marketed as potential cures, but there is simply no evidence that they work. The FDA keeps a list of known fake cancer treatments in an attempt to combat such misinformation.
Others claim that magnets can cure cancer, but the research into "magnetic therapy" shows that such static fields are biologically inert and this is wishful thinking. It is also sometimes claimed that homeopathy can cure cancer – which is of course nonsense because homeopathy has been shown to work no better than placebo and would have to defy the known laws of physics and chemistry to be effective. While these people may be well-meaning but misinformed, there are more dubious outfits such as the Burzynski clinic, which claims to have pioneered a new form of cancer treatment known as antineoplastons. Yet since its foundation in 1976, the clinic has produced no peer-reviewed evidence that its wares actually work, and charges patients colossal amounts of money to undergo clinical trials, which is an ethically questionable practise. Critics of the clinic have been subjected to threats of litigation.
Stanislaw Burzynski, its founder, has been
Stanislaw Burzynski, its founder, has been sued by former patients for defrauding them. Despite this, he is often framed as a hero being suppressed by "big pharma", tying neatly into the conspiracy fallacy and ignoring the fact that such organisations make substantial profit from very ill people without offering any verified treatment.
To quote the late, great Patrick Swayze, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2009: "If anybody had that cure out there like so many people swear to me they do, you'd be two things: you'd be very rich, and you'd be very famous. Otherwise, shut up."
Cancer is scary, but it should not be forgotten that treatment options and outcomes have never been better and continue to improve. As the Neon Roberts case demonstrates aptly, misinformation can cause serious and potentially tragic problems. It is natural for people to have concerns and questions, and a talk with one's physician, nurse or healthcare adviser can do much to answer these and assuage fears.
While the internet is a potentially fantastic source for information (Cancer Research UK has
To quote the late, great Patrick Swayze, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2009: "If anybody had that cure out there like so many people swear to me they do, you'd be two things: you'd be very rich, and you'd be very famous. Otherwise, shut up." Cancer is scary, but it should not be forgotten that treatment options and outcomes have never been better and continue to improve. As the Neon Roberts case demonstrates aptly, misinformation can cause serious and potentially tragic problems. It is natural for people to have concerns and questions, and a talk with one's physician, nurse or healthcare adviser can do much to answer these and assuage fears. While the internet is a potentially fantastic source for information (Cancer Research UK has some very useful patient resources), great care must be taken to avoid treating spurious information as factual. Carl Sagan's famous dictum that, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", should always be kept in mind when dealing with promises of miracle cures.
David Robert Grimes is a physicist and researcher at Oxford University who writes for The Irish Times. He tweets as
David Robert Grimes is a physicist and researcher at Oxford University who writes for The Irish Times. He tweets as @drg1985 and blogs at Three men make a tiger
Is this a myth? Well that patently depends on what X actually is.
Clearly there are many strange and stupid ideas floating about. That's the nature of the beast. It does attract some extremes. However, that does not mean to say that there are no successful cancer treatments and protocols.
The fact that a number of oddities exist, does not prove that all are unsound.
One could easily list a large number of orthodox medicines and drugs that have proven to be seriously flawed and harmful, cause death, or cause severe deformity like thalidomide. Should one conclude that ALL orthodox medicines are not to be trusted? Probably not.
But if we do that for one, we must do it for the other.
As to "Burzynski clinic, which claims to have pioneered a new form of cancer treatment known as antineoplastons....." quote.
I am not too familiar with this treatment. But the fact that this clinic is still practising (after many years) suggests he is within the law and ultimately not judged to be doing harm. The fact that he is "being sued" by somebody is hardly unique in the medical profession!!! However I do understand that his treatment is controversial, but he (by legal statute ) only treats people after conventional treatments have failed.
Thus many of his patients are actually on borrowed time in many cases. If results are not great, then that might be as you might logically expect. Yet he does get excellent results, given the circumstances.
Truth about Burzynski Cancer Cure...hounded relentlessly by the FDA
"The FDA keeps a list of known fake cancer treatments in an attempt to combat such misinformation".
Unfortunately, the FDA does everything in its power to undermine alternative treatments. It even outlaws the above quoted APRICOT SEEDS! which I eat most days, along with millions of others, with no ill effects whatsoever. Yet the FDA and US law assert they are "poisonous", and are thus BANNED from the United States. (They contain B17, as do apple seeds). So we should not be too hung up on the dictats of the infamous FDA. Anyone who holds that outfit as commendable needs to do more research, and reserve some scepticism for the other side.
True there is a lot of spurious information on the internet. "Cancer is scary, but it should not be forgotten that treatment options and outcomes have never been better and continue to improve."
This is a questionable statement. Statistics are only marginally better now than 30 years ago. Possibly accounted for by earlier detection, rather than improved treatments. But in any event, conventional treatment is far from ideal, and even doctors condemn the lack of progress since they declared war on cancer back in the 1970's.
"After 50 years and 200 billion dollars we have not cured cancer. Last year alone, over 570,000 Americans and 7,000,000 people worldwide died of cancer. Why?" (Cure Cancer Project.Org)
Finally, a word on the Neon Roberts case. If there were [legally allowed], proper, well qualified alternative cancer treatment doctors and clinics available in the UK, (as I hope one day there will be) then there would be no need to scrabble about - in panic mode - trying to invent your own solution, as his mother was compelled to do. Instead you are FORCED to have radiation and chemo against your will, without choice. Obviously many children have bad outcomes from such treatment, but with such a dangerous fast growing tumour perhaps conventional treatment is most appropriate in this type of case. (?)
That does not translate as conventional treatment is superior. But in a [time-sensitive] situation it might be the best worst option. However, in MOST cancer cases, I believe that - when there is reasonable time - then alternative non-toxic treatments are potentially far superior, and should be made available in all countries, not just some, like Germany.
There are many successful non-toxic cancer treatments. I followed that path. But that is a personal choice, and one must weigh the options. Before I did so, I read Outsmart Your Cancer, by Tanya Harter Pierce which provides a great resource of information on the best and most trusted non-toxic cancer treatments.
Ideally, an alternative cancer treatment is a TOTALITY treatment. This means addressing ALL logical causes and likely solutions that can endow the body with what it desperately needs to reverse the cancer process and heal the body. Not just one substance or treatment, but a protocol of measures that attack the problem from all sides.....but in a non-toxic way! The fact that many have been successful, means almost everyone possibly could be, - if medical science switched its focus toward perfecting such protocols, and then adapting things to suit each patients' particular situation and genetic type.
The FACT that cancer is being cured by various alternative methods worldwide is only a "myth" to those with their eyes wide shut!
By pooling everything together, even the absurd, this writer (like many others) attempts to discredit ALL alternative approaches to cancer, while at the same time embellishing facts relating to conventional treatments and the cancer industry, all wrapped up in a little bundle for readers to swallow.
His own paper The Guardian often exposes corruption of BIG PHARMA...such as:
"GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales"
Hey, what's Three Billion?
CONCLUSION: Unless you understand that cancer is a SYSTEMIC disease usually created due to a toxic unhealthy inner environment...that needs to be fixed or healed, then you will not understand the concept of healing cancer by natural alternative means.
Orthodox medicine instead treats cancer as a separate entity that must be destroyed at all costs, and so uses the most toxic killer treatment the human body can endure.
(Just one classic example)