Cancer & the Big 3 therapies–opening a can of worms


Recently a good friend of mine for 20+years lost her battle with ovarian & colon cancer.  She followed the direction of her oncologist who prescribed the BIG 3 standard protocols for fighting cancer in conventional medicine.  Surgery, Chemotherapy, and Radiation therapy.  She fought this battle valiantly for about 2 years, and at times we thought she was on the road to recovery, yet in the end conventional medicine left her with no more options.  About 2 months before she passed away her oncologist told her that they had tried everything, and now there was nothing they could do for her.  What terrible news to receive.  I came to visit and pray for her one evening when this was all hitting the fan, and she told me that the worst part was that she had trusted her doctors direction all along the way, and now she was left to die.  What a feeling of abandonment.  She remained strong in her christian faith, but this sentence from the oncologist clearly took its toll. When I received this report via email, something inside me said, “I don’t accept that there is nothing that can be done!!”   I prayed to the Lord to give me wisdom about what I could do, and this sparked a fire in me to investigate the roots of cancer and alternative methods of therapy.  Previously, if I had contracted cancer myself I would have done exactly what my friend did–follow the advice of a trained oncologist without the thought of anything else.  After looking more closely at the big 3 protocols and alternative cancer therapies I realized I had just opened a can of worms.  I encountered what I believe to be a TRUTHBREAKDOWN.

What my research has uncovered is that there are over 400 conventional & alternative cancer treatment protocols that have been in use over the past few centuries and that there are over 200 more in the testing phase according the Independent Cancer Research Foundation.  So my question was and still is, why have our oncologists chosen the Big 3 cancer therapies (Surgery, Chemotherapy, Radiation) as the most common protocols for fighting cancer out of all the other options?  Surely they have been proven to greatly enhance 5 year survival rates?  My research has shown me that the success of the Big 3 is quite controversial.  The controversy surrounds whether these therapies actually do more harm than good and are they attacking the roots of the problem or just the symptoms.  Lets take a closer look at each:

**As a disclaimer, my research and opinions below are there as a commentary on conventional medical practices, and are not meant to be used as medical advice outside of the opinion of a medical doctor, which I am not.  Use the information to discuss with your health professional.

1) Surgery—          

 Photo of a breast biopsy.Stephen McCulley

This involves removing tumors by themselves, removing the tumor and surrounding tissue, or removing an entire body part (ie. breast) where the tumor resides.  The philosophy here is, the tumor is the enemy and must be removed.  If the tumor is removed without metastasis (spreading), it is considered a success.  What caused the tumor to develop in the first place is not addressed with surgery.  My research has shown me that a tumor may not be the enemy we’ve made it.  Some consider the tumor as our body’s way of protecting itself by localizing  the cancer cells, fungi, and microbes in a secure coating to keep it from spreading.  The tumor is actually saving the person from cancer metastasis.  Understanding this, one must seriously question the use of tumor biopsies which poke holes in the tumor to collect samples for testing.  I’ve found that many alternative practitioners vehemently oppose biopsies because they cause tumors to leak out the cancer cells, fungi, and microbes which then spread to another area in the body (metastasis).  There is concern that Mammograms (breast x-rays) may squish tumors to the point of breaking them, causing leakage as well.  There are alternatives to biopsies which test your cancer status by examining certain  antibodies or hormone levels in your blood (ie.  AMAS test, HCG hormone test, etc…).  See http://alternativecancer.us/cancer_testing.htm

  Another consideration I’ve found with surgery is that oncologists tend to be a little ‘trigger happy’ with regards to removing body parts.  My mother-in-law had a cancerous tumor in her breast about 20 years ago and her oncologist suggested a mastectomy (complete breast removal).  Using her own common sense, she challenged her doctor saying that if her tumor was secure and localized, why not just remove the tumor instead of the entire breast!!  The oncologist relented and she still has her breast today.   One must wonder if surgery profit has some relation to this “trigger happiness”.   So Brent, what are you saying about tumors then, just leave them alone?  Well, surgery seems to make sense if the tumor growth is interfering with an essential organ (ie. digestive colon blockage), but if no imminent problem exists, it seems sensible to leave it alone and use alternative therapies known to attack the roots of tumor growth first–and yes there are many (I will save this for future blogs).  Remember tumors are  protecting the rest of your body, so you need to protect them from leaking.  With surgery there is always a chance of leakage.  Not only that, surgery of any kind has inherent risks such as blood clots which can travel to the heart, lungs, and/or brain causing a stroke or even death.  My mother-in-law (yes she has been through a lot)  had an operation on her heart valve, and consequently she had a stroke due to a blood clot from the operation.  Thank God she has recovered for the most part but it took time.  So if you can shrink your tumor(s) without surgery, that is the ideal scenario.  As you can see, I feel conventional oncology has been somewhat haphazard in their use of surgical methods.

2) Radiation Therapy

Computed Tomography Scanner  

According to the National Cancer Institute, “Radiation therapy uses high-energy radiation to kill cancer cells by damaging their DNA”.  They also acknowledge “Radiation therapy can damage normal cells as well as cancer cells.”  Just like surgery, radiation therapy does not address the root cause behind the cancer and its focus is on killing the “bad” tumor.  So if the cancer cells are destroyed by DNA damage from the radiation, what about the DNA in the normal cells that become collateral damage?  According to Dr. Mark Sircus,

it is well established that exposure to ionizing radiation can result in mutations or other genetic damage that cause cells to turn cancerous but that has not stopped oncologists from using radiation therapy.” 

 News stories over the years from Chernobyl and the Fukushima nuclear disasters have generally educated the public about the dangers of radiation and its link to cancer.

  So lets reiterate, radiation clearly causes cancer, yet at the same time radiation therapy is one of the most common treatments to cure cancer?  To me, this type of logic is like someone trying to put a fire out with gasoline!!  Yes, radiation therapy does shrink tumors and kill cancer cells.  And to be fair, my research has shown that newer technology is making radiation beams much more precise, thus a patient receives less radiation.  But, if we have options that shrink tumors without risking collateral radiation, should not that be the therapy used?

 Much controversy has developed due to the interpretation of “response rate” vs. “survival rate”.  Yes, radiation therapy may have a very successful “response rate” with cancer tumors, meaning it is effective at shrinking tumors.  An oncologist may tell their patient that radiation may have a very high “response rate”,  and the patient may agree to the therapy thinking that what the doctor is talking about is “survival rate”.  They are definitely not the same.  My research has shown me that most studies on cancer therapy success are based on “response rate” or “5 year survival rates”.  To a nervous and fear ridden cancer patient, they probably do not realize there is a difference between the two.  My opinion  is, what good is it if my tumor shrinks if I do not survive the treatments or die shortly after?  Those who are very successful a fighting cancer through alternative therapies focus on building up the body’s natural defences by strengthening the immune system.  Radiation, similar to chemotherapy, does the complete opposite by killing cancer cells as well as the white blood cells which make up our immune system.  Many cancer patients, after receiving radiation therapy and chemotherapy, have little of any immune system left to fight any disease.  S.L. Baker writes. ”

Stephan Gripp, MD, of the University Hospital in Dusseldorf, Germany, and his colleagues investigated the treatment of terminally ill cancer patients who were referred for palliative radiotherapy at the University Hospital between December 2003 and July 2004. In all, they studied 33 of these patients, all of whom died within 30 days of receiving radiation therapy.”Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028764_cancer_patients_radiation.html#ixzz1rnWGjyC4
 
Its not only the white blood cells that are killed, normal red blood cells are killed as well.  Many successful cancer therapies focus on increasing the amount of oxygen in the body, but when red blood cells (the carriers of oxygen) are killed, less oxygen is carried in the blood and the patient becomes anemic.  This further weakens the body’s ability to fight off disease. 
 
 According to the Independent Cancer Research Foundation, “Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist by training, treated more than 33,000 cancer patients with natural medicine. His cure rate on newly diagnosed cancer patients, who went to him first, was over 90%.”   BUT!! when patients who have done conventional radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy first, then come to these type of alternative practitioners “the true cure rate of the best experts in alternative cancer treatments, on these types of patients, is between 40% and 50%.”   Though 40-50% is still pretty good in comparison to conventional methods, one can see the effect of how damaging radiation therapy and chemotherapy really are. 
 
So Brent, are you saying radiation therapy should be totally avoided?  My research has shown that there may be times when radiation therapy may have some beneficial use.  For instance, if a tumor is growing very fast and intruding against a vital organ (ie. brain), because radiation can shrink tumors quicker than natural methods, a very precise beam directed only at the tumor may “buy some time” while a person is taking alternative therapies like Dr. Kelley.  Conversely, given all the harm that radiation therapy produces, I would not use radiation therapy unless there was an immediate need for it.   I would not view radiation therapy as curative, but maybe as a “life-raft” to buy time.  One must use common sense here. 
 
 I would also be wary of submitting to CT (“cat”) scans, Mammograms and X-rays which also emit radiation.   Jennifer Bails writes,
 
 “a CT scan can deliver doses of ionizing radiation at least 50 to 250 times greater than a traditional X-ray, found a report published last November in the New England Journal of Medicine by researchers David Brenner and Eric Hall of Columbia University Medical Center. As a point of comparison, a CT scan of a child’s abdomen can supply the radiation equivalent of 600 chest X-rays. “
 
Instead I would push for thermal imaging, MRI, or ultrasound methods for analysis needs.  All doctors are supposed to abide by the Hippocratic oath, “I will keep them from harm and injustice”.  Knowing this, I feel Oncologists need to rethink their use of radiation therapy and radiation diagnostics.
 
3) Chemotherapy–
 
Chemotherapy : Breast cancer ribbon - portrait of patient undergoing chemotherapy. Real woman, diagnosed with breast and ovarian cancer.   Chemotherapy : Nurse Giving Patient Injection Through Tube Stock Photo  Chemotherapy : Close up of an infusion bottle  Stock Photo  Chemotherapy : Drugs in a Daily Pill Dispenser
 
According to the National Cancer Institute, “Chemotherapy (also called chemo) is a type of cancer treatment that uses drugs to destroy cancer cells.  Chemotherapy works by stopping or slowing the growth of cancer cells, which grow and divide quickly. But it can also harm healthy cells that divide quickly, such as those that line your mouth and intestines or cause your hair to grow.”  Again like radiation therapy, chemotherapy do not address the root cause behind the cancer, and it is responsible for collateral damage to healthy cells.  It is a Kill, Kill, Kill approach which may have some success at “response rate” but there is great debate as to whether it has any success at “5 year survival rate”.
 
So what’s really go on here?  Biochemists have discovered cancer cells grow at a much faster rate than regular cells, so if a chemical can be injected that only kills fast-growing cells (cytotoxic), cancer cells and tumors will get killed.  The problem is cancer cells aren’t the only fast growing cells in the body.  Anywhere where there is cellular rejuvenation occurring gets hit with chemo including hair, mouth, digestive tract, and our all-important white blood cells.  Like radiation therapy, the loss of white blood cells is the part of chemo that doctors are most concerned about when administering it.  The immune system basically gets toasted, yet this is considered acceptable collateral damage.

As Gary Null and James Feast write,
 
“(After chemotherapy,) the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead and you are only half dead and recover.”Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/012727.html#ixzz1rwnwusUx
 
Most successful alternative cancer protocols focus on building the body’s immune system and removing toxic chemicals from the body.  Chemo does the exact opposite, injecting highly toxic chemicals into body which destroy our immune system.  How toxic are these chemo drugs? According to Dr. Tim O’Shea,
 
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols.”
 
 
 So to heal people from cancer we are injecting “major biohazards” into them, and we are expecting them to get well?  Trying to put out a fire with gasoline comes to mind again.  But Brent, chemo wouldn’t be so widely used around the world for cancer therapy if it wasn’t a proven way to fight and cure cancer.  Sure, there may be some success stories but the more common testimony I read on the internet is someone who endures an awful period of grueling side effects only to be left in an incredibly weakened state.  The National Cancer Institute readily lists the side effects of chemo are anemia, loss of appetite, bleeding problems, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, hairloss, infection, memory changes, mouth and throat changes, nausea and vomiting, nerve changes, pain, sexual and fertility changes, skin and nail changes, swelling (fluid retention), and urination changes. These potential symptoms are not what you would want to wish on anyone.  If the patient survives the chemo treatments, the cancer may go into a short period of remission and then come back like a freight train.  Linda Marsa, from the L.A. times, writes on the findings of Dr. Jonathan Berek on ovarian cancer,
 
Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90% of patients then go into remission, a period of “watchful waiting.” “The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90% of women will relapse and die,” says Berek.  When the cancer returns, in other surrounding tissue, the cancer is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy.
 
This is exactly what my friend, mentioned at the beginning of this blog, experienced.  But Brent, even if chemo damages the body, it’s better than doing nothing?  Well, actually according to Dr. Allen Levin,
 
“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.”
 
Did you catch that? Most cancer patients die not from the cancer but from the chemotherapy!!  Come on Brent, today’s chemo drugs are much more advanced now and you are making chemo seem worse than it really is.  Well, my friend just passed away a little over a month ago in 2012 and everything I’ve presented here in my research, I saw happen to her with own eyes.  So if chemo is so much more advanced now, why did the same terrible process I read about show up in her involvement with today’s modern oncology. 
 
Here’s the facts, conventional oncology has made minimal advances in 5 year survival rates and has delivered a poor quality of life for those who endure the Big 3 cancer therapies.  There are literally hundreds of other options for cancer therapies that are termed “alternative”.  Most of these methods do little if any harm the body, are far less expensive, and have much higher success rates.  They focus on building up the body and treating the roots of cancer, not destroying patients bodies and treating symptoms.  Modern oncologists may term alternative practitioners as “quacks” because some have died in their care.  If death rates are how we judge doctors, modern oncologists should be considered “quacks” of the highest order. 
 
 My problem is not actually with doctors and oncologists, I have many friends in the profession.  Most doctors I’ve met are very kind and do genuinely care about their patients.  My problem is with the “system” they’ve inherited and the training they’ve been given at medical school.  When you take a closer look at our medical system, there are certain therapies that physicians are allowed to use, and alternative therapies that they are not allowed to use.  Doctors risk losing their licence to practice medicine if they use “alternative” methods.  No way Brent!! yes way.  Almost all of the best alternative cancer practitioners of the past & present have received some sort of backlash from the medical elite (I will save this for a future blog).  These Elite will say these alternative methods have not received proper testing or that patients have died using them.  A closer examination will reveal that it almost impossible to get proper funding and acceptance to carry out official testing on cheaper alternative methods.  The only therapies accepted are the expensive ones that have patents from pharmaceutical companies.  If money cannot be made to compensate Big Pharma for their “synthetic” drugs, they are not approved for testing.  Big money cannot be made on “natural” cancer fighting substances because they are ineligible for patents. 
 
Make no mistake about it, cancer is big money.  According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2007 the cost (or should I say money earned) of cancer was $226.8 billion.  According to a study done by Harvard University, National Cancer Institute, and National Bureau of Economic Research in December 2007, the average cost/year/lung cancer patient (called cost effectiveness ratio) was $403,142/life year gained.   This comprised $143,614 for localized cancer, $145,861 for regional cancer, and $1,190,322 for metastatic cancer.  According to Sandra Boodman in the Washington Post, the annual cost of cancer pills can be well over $75000/year.  Add in surgery, CT scans, PET scans, radiation therapy, blood tests, medications, x-rays, and physician fees and you get the picture here. 
 
Conversely, according to Mark Sircus who is a natural allopathic cancer practitioner,
 
 The full cost for all the natural healing substances you will need will not exceed $6,000 a year. Instead of paying a fortune for a single pharmaceutical with toxic effects offering limited results one can nourish the body and attack the cancer with:

  • Magnesium Chloride
  • Iodine
  • Selenium
  • Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA)
  • Sodium Bicarbonate
  • Natural Vitamin C
  • Cesium Chloride
  • Sodium and Calcium Bentonite Clays
  • Natural Chelation Formula
  • Sodium Thiosulfate
  • Spirulina
  • Zeolite

Canadian and American politicians are struggling with the ever increasing healthcare costs and how to find ways to decrease waste in the system.   If natural cancer therapies cost $6000/year and conventional therapies cost $400,ooo++/year, why do we continue to throw billions of dollars at methods which are antiquated and barbaric.  The Big 3 cancer therapies give you taste of how Big Pharma and profit-driven protocols are destroying our healthcare system.  Of course, for most the main concern is the health of people, but when finances are misappropriated to wasted protocols, services are lessened to other well-deserving and life-giving healthcare. So here’s our decision.

Support expensive, barbaric, immune destroying, profit-driven cancer protocols OR cheaper, humane, immune-building, and body nourishing cancer protocols.  The choice seems simple, but our society has entered a truthbreakdown and only the brave can change the powers that be.

Here is a good summary analogy of the Big 3 cancer therapies that I found on the Independent Cancer Research Foundation website which they used from cancertutor.com,

Suppose you are very rich and own a very rare, priceless antique dining room table formerly owned by English royalty. Suppose your butler tells you that there are dozens of cockroaches crawling around on your priceless table and you will be having dinner guests in one hour.

Your butler tells you his job description does not include killing cockroaches and as he is leaving your house, he gives you four suggestions for getting rid of the cockroaches:


1) He offers you a chainsaw to “slash” the little critters to pieces,
2) He offers you a large and powerful flamethrower to “burn” the critters to pieces,
3) He offers you 2 gallons of a highly, highly toxic liquid chemical to “poison” the critters, and
4) He offers you an old $1 flyswatter.

Which of the four options would you pick? Would you choose one of the first three options (slash, burn and poison) because they are highly potent at killing cockroaches or would you choose the cheap, wimpy flyswatter?

 This example may seem a little ridiculous, but it gives a reasonable analogy of the choices conventional oncologists give cancer patients.  Your body is worth much more than an antique dining table so you should consider that when choosing your treatments. 
 
I will dedicate some of my future blogs to kinder, gentler, humane, and more effective natural treatments and alternative practitioners who have had success in battling cancer and chronic disease. 
 
God Bless,
 
 
Advertisements

One comment on “Cancer & the Big 3 therapies–opening a can of worms

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s