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.
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—
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. ”
- Magnesium Chloride
- Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA)
- Sodium Bicarbonate
- Natural Vitamin C
- Cesium Chloride
- Sodium and Calcium Bentonite Clays
- Natural Chelation Formula
- Sodium Thiosulfate
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?