The following are 16 important common questions about alternative, non-toxic treatments for cancer. Clicking on any of these questions will take you to that question with its answer below.
- What is the definition of an "alternative treatment" for cancer?
- Why are alternative, non-toxic approaches to cancer so often more effective than conventional cancer treatments?
- What are the most common misconceptions about alternative cancer treatments?
- Do any experts endorse alternative cancer treatments?
- Are there any alternative treatments for cancer that are bogus?
- Why is it so important for people to know about alternative treatments for cancer?
- How is "cure" defined when dealing with cancer?
- I heard that most cancers, when caught early, are curable these days by mainstream medical techniques? Is this true?
- If alternative treatments for cancer are so successful, why aren't oncologists and cancer clinics recommending them?
- Why do alternative treatments for cancer have better track records than conventional cancer treatments?
- What causes cancer?
- Some people think that by the time they get cancer the medical establishment will have found a cure. Is this a reasonable expectation?
- Is there a "conspiracy" to suppress alternative cancer treatments?
- If the mainstream cancer industry has effectively suppressed alternative cancer treatments before, what will keep them from continuing to do so?
- If I want to use an alternative cancer treatment approach, should I still consult with a conventional oncologist first?
- Can I use a conventional approach along with an alternative approach at the same time?
Q#1: What is the definition of an "alternative treatment" for cancer?
A: The definition for "alternative treatment" that I use in my book is "any treatment approach that is not currently accepted by mainstream medicine." Generally, these are treatments which are NOT taught to doctors in medical schools (thus not understood by most doctors), NOT advertised in medical journals, and NOT recommended by most physicians to their patients. They are also generally NOT covered by health insurance policies. None of this, however, means they are not effective. In fact, they often have a much higher documented efficacy than conventional treatments.
Q#2: Why are alternative, non-toxic approaches to cancer so often more effective than conventional cancer treatments?
A: The answer to this question can be found in the "non-toxic" nature of alternative treatments. All alternative cancer treatment approaches are non-toxic when used correctly. On the other hand, the "mainstream" medical establishment is committed to chemotherapy drugs and other procedures such as radiation that are toxic by nature. The long-term track records of numerous successful alternative approaches show that cancer can be most effectively overcome by using a non-toxic approach, and I believe this to be the case for two main reasons:
1) The first reason is that non-toxic approaches allow for "continual" administration, or use, while toxic approaches do not. Toxic conventional approaches cannot be administered in a "continual" way because they are so toxic that continual use would kill the patient before the cancer could. Because of this, toxic approaches are always administered with doses or treatments spaced out in some way. Spacing out treatments, however, is not an effective way to battle cancer because cancer's best attribute is its ability to grow new cells fast. This means that, in-between the toxic treatments while your body is recovery from the treatment, the cancer cells may also recover somewhat from the treatment. And those cells that grow back the fastest are the cells that have some amount of resistance to the treatment. As a result, due to the toxic treatment itself, many cancer patients eventually have to deal with multi-drug-resistant (or MDR) cancer cells in their bodies that are even more difficult to get rid of than the original cancer cells were.
In other words, when a cancer patient needs a few days or weeks for their body to recover from the toxic treatment being given them, the cancer cells may also start to recover during this time. The cancer may even start to grow faster than before due to the body's immune system having been weakened by the toxic treatment. Eventually, a person's body may not be able to recover at all because the immune system and vital organs have been too weakened by the treatment itself.
With non-toxic treatment, however, this vicious cycle is avoided. People using a non-toxic approach can safely do that approach every day for months or even years without any detriment to their body. For example, people using Protocel, Burzynski's antineoplastons, Dr. Gonzalez's enzymes, Hoxsey's herbal remedy, Cesium High pH therapy, etc., can use these treatment approaches "24/7" for as long as they need to until their cancer is gone. Moreover, once a cancer patient using a non-toxic method is pronounced in remission, they can often keep using their approach on a maintenance level, if they choose, to ensure that their cancer will never re-develop. This "continual use" aspect of non-toxic treatments makes them much more effective at combating something as fast-replicating as cancer.
2) The second reason that alternative treatments are so often more effective than conventional ones has to do with their LACK of life-threatening side-effects. Toxic conventional treatments can cause extremely serious negative side effects, such as damage to the liver, kidneys, and heart, to the point where the side effects themselves may kill the patient! Many, many people have died from chemotherapy and/or radiation that was used to treat their cancer. Radiation to areas of the chest for breast or lung cancer can cause severe heart damage and the patient may subsequently die from heart failure. Chemotherapy can bring about kidney or liver failure, heart attack, or may promote a fatal infection or blood clot.
Moreover, both chemotherapy and radiation can cause "secondary" cancers to develop later on. (Yes, many conventional cancer treatments are actually carcinogenic!) Thus, even if a cancer patient goes into remission as a result of their toxic conventional treatment, they may either die of a heart attack or other organ failure a few years later, or they may develop a new life-threatening cancer that could kill them. Two of the most common types off secondary cancers caused by conventional treatment liver cancer and leukemia. Thus, with toxic conventional approaches to cancer, the treatment itself can very often kill the patient.
Q#3: What are the most common misconceptions about alternative cancer treatments?
A: There are many widespread misconceptions, but the three most common ones are:
1) That alternative treatments are unscientific and are developed or administered by quacks.
2) That alternative treatments simply involve eating organic foods and taking lots of immune-boosting supplements from the local health food store.
3) That, if alternative treatments really worked, all doctors and cancer clinics would be using them.
Q#4: Do any experts endorse alternative cancer treatments?
A: Yes, plenty! Some alternative approaches today are actually administered by highly acclaimed physicians in very professional settings. But physicians in most U.S. states are not legally allowed to prescribe alternative cancer treatments to their patients. Nor are they allowed to publicly endorse any treatment not approved by the FDA. So, the laws in our country have their hands tied. However, over the decades, numerous books and articles endorsing alternative cancer treatments have been written by certain physicians, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, physicists, and other respected cancer researchers.
Q#5: Are there any alternative treatments for cancer that are bogus?
A: There can be unscrupulous practitioners in any area of medicine, conventional or alternative. People should be very discerning when it comes to choosing a cancer treatment approach or practitioner. It is important to be diligent and find a particular method, practitioner, or clinic that has a genuine positive track record. Whenever possible, contacting other cancer patients who succeeded with that particular treatment or doctor is recommended.
Q#6: Why is it so important for people to know about alternative treatments for cancer?
A: It is important because statistics show that approximately 1 in 3 Americans will develop life-threatening cancer some time in their life. (And some researchers believe this reality is closer to 1 in 2 Americans.) Unfortunately, the conventional treatments for cancer (which include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and a handful of other recent drug therapies) offer a dismally low chance for "real" recovery. "Real" recovery means returning to a pre-disease state of health, or becoming cancer-free. Conventional cancer medicine, on the other hand, defines "cured" as merely "alive 5 years after diagnosis". Thus, in most cases, conventional doctors don't even expect to be able to bring a cancer patient back to a cancer-free state. And the conventional cancer industry has never kept records on how many people they can actually make cancer-free.
The sad reality is that most people with cancer will not survive their disease if treated through conventional medicine. On the other hand, many people today believe that certain alternative treatments for cancer have historically been much more successful than current conventional treatments, and still offer better track records for "real" recoveries. It is vitally important that anyone dealing with a life-threatening disease be told of the MOST effective options available to them.
Q#7: How is "cure" defined when dealing with cancer?
A: You would think that the term "cure" would be defined the same way in all circles. But, as mentioned in the above answer, that is not the case. The American Cancer Society, the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, and all other mainstream organizations involved with recording or publishing cancer statistics define a cancer cure as "alive 5 years after diagnosis." Thus, if a cancer patient courageously struggles through debilitating surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, and eventually dies a miserable death, full of cancer, 5 years and two weeks after they were diagnosed, that person will be listed in official statistics as "cured" simply because they were alive five years after diagnosis! By using this strange definition of "cure", official cancer cure rates put out by the American Cancer Society and other organizations make conventional medical approaches look much more successful than they really are.
In truth, this strange re-defining of the term "cure" is not only criminal deception, but it also, proves that conventional medicine has such a poor ability to bring about real cancer recoveries that they must resort to this sort of tactic to make themselves look better. And this is only one of many questionable tactics used to fudge and manipulate conventional cancer statistics to make them look better and mislead the public.
In the field of alternative therapies for cancer, practitioners tend to avoid the word "cure" altogether because they will get in trouble with organized medicine if they claim they can cure cancer. So, they tend to use words like, "control" cancer, or "long-term recovery rates". The truth is, however, that if you look into all of the alternative cancer treatments that have been effective of the decades, they historically had great track records in bringing about "real" cures. This means that when people using alternative cancer treatments are referred to as cured, they are typically truly cancer-free and no longer suffering from the disease.
Q#8: I heard that most cancers, when caught early, are curable these days by mainstream medical techniques? Is this true?
A: No, unfortunately this is not true. As stated above, the conventional "real" cure rates for cancer are not as good as the public is led to believe. A small percentage of patients will be lucky enough to experience real, long-term recovery through the use of conventional surgery. But surgery is only curative when the cancer is caught early and completely localized in an organ or some part of the body that can be cut away, such as the thyroid gland, testicle, uterus, or breast. However, once the cancer has spread past a single localized place, surgery is not curative. (Though it may prolong a person's life, it cannot bring them to a full recovery.) The vast majority of cancers that are diagnosed each year in America have already metastasized beyond a localized place, so conventional surgery can only be effective in a long-term way for a lucky few. The other conventional cancer treatments used – primarily radiation and chemotherapy – are known by doctors as rarely curative. Generally, they are merely used as "palliative" treatments, which means they are not expected to fully get rid of a person's cancer, but are used with the expectation of simply prolonging the patient's life. (Sometimes for no more than a few months.) In other words, for cases involving metastasized cancer, which covers about three-quarters of all cancer cases diagnosed each year, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are simply palliative treatments that cannot save the life of the patient.
Moreover, countless cancer patients die from the conventional treatments administered to them. No one can say exactly how many people this involves every year because the cancer industry does not keep records on deaths from cancer treatment. The way it works is that, if a person is administered radiation to the chest area for either breast cancer or lung cancer, and then he or she suffers a fatal heart attack sometime after that due to the severe damage to the heart caused by the radiation, that person is NOT listed as a death from cancer or from cancer treatment side effects. They are simply listed as a heart attack death, and their case goes into the heart disease statistics. And there are many forms that conventional cancer treatment deaths can take: fatal heart attack, fatal blood clot, kidney failure, liver failure, and even death from secondary cancer directly caused by the cancer treatment. None of these deaths, however, are recorded in such a way as to detract from mainstream medicine's cancer treatment efficacy!
Q#9: If alternative treatments for cancer are so successful, why aren't oncologists and cancer clinics recommending them?
A: Most conventional doctors and cancer clinics do not recommend alternative treatments for cancer for a variety of reasons. The primary reason is that, in most U.S. states, doctors are not legally allowed to recommend any treatments for cancer that the FDA has not approved. Since the FDA refuses to even consider approving any treatment that does not bring big profits to the pharmaceutical companies and other large industries they are associated with, then any treatment not approved by the FDA is automatically called "alternative". It can be a very serious legal transgression for most doctors if they try to recommend an alternative cancer treatment, even if they know that treatment could give their patient the best possible chance for recovery. Many highly respected doctors have tried to practice alternative approaches and lost their medical licenses as a result, or were even thrown in jail. Two of the most liberal states in the U.S., where many of the alternative therapies are being practiced today, are Nevada and Arizona. Numerous physicians who wish to practice alternative cancer medicine have moved to one of these states.
Another reason is that most conventional doctors don't have an adequate understanding of alternative treatments for cancer because they have never been educated about hem and there are virtually no references to alternative medicine in their medical school training or their medical journals. These, too, are controlled by pharmaceutical companies.
One more issue that can be problematic is that some doctors might know about alternative treatments but feel emotionally threatened by them. Especially for oncologists, acknowledging that other techniques probably would have worked better for their terminally ill patients than the methods they have been using can be quite painful. It may be easier for an oncologist or other type of doctor to simply deny this reality than to acknowledge that many of the patients he or she treated could have lived rather than died.
And, lastly, many doctors also suffer from the "disbelief factor" so common throughout the public. This disbelief factor tends to be expressed by everyday people in the statement, "If these treatments really work, why aren't all doctors using them?" Many doctors may feel the same way and express their disbelief as, "If these treatments really work, why wasn't I taught them in medical school and why aren't I reading about them in my medical journals?"
Q#10: Why do alternative treatments for cancer have better track records than conventional cancer treatments?
A: To be honest, not all do. But in my book "Outmart Your Cancer: Alternative Non-Toxic treatments that Work," I present what I consider to be the most effective alternative treatments obtainable today. Some of these DO have documented cure rates that are better than conventional treatments, and others offer multiple case stories of people who had conventional treatment fail them and then went on to use that alternative approach to achieve a complete recovery.
The simple answer is that alternative treatments, in general, deal with the true causes of cancer and with the caner patient's whole body in a non-toxic way. This is a much more effective way to complete rid a person of cancer than conventional medical treatments, which involve toxic approaches and only target the "symptoms" of cancer (the tumors themselves). In my book, I describe the science behind each approach and readers can thereby gain an in-depth understanding of the subtleties of why alternative approaches work so well.
A: This question is really too big to answer here. Please refer to my book, "Outsmart Your Cancer," in which I aggress this question in depth. Chapter 2 gives an overview of this issue, but each treatment chapter provides an even more in-depth understanding of what causes cancer on the cellular level.
Q#12: Some people think that by the time they get cancer the medical establishment will have found a cure. Is this a reasonable expectation?
A: I cannot predict the future, but I would say to those people, "Don't hold your breath!" The mainstream medical establishment has been claiming to be actively searching for a cure since the 1940's or so, and they have been predicting a cure right around the corner ever since. The problem is that conventional medicine has been looking for a cure in the wrong places. They mostly just test drugs that are toxic to tumors and, since these drugs are also toxic to the rest of the body, it is impossible to use enough of the drug to get rid of every last cancer cell in a patient. It is well-known that, in most cases, if a doctor were to prescribe enough chemotherapy or radiation to a patient to kill every cancer cell in a person's body, the treatment would also kill the patient. But unless treatment can get rid of every last cancer cell, the cancer will always grow back. This is the cause of the treatment roller coaster so many conventional cancer patients have to go through. They receive treatment, go into remission, the cancer grows back, they receive treatment again, go into remission again, etc., until finally the patient's body is too damaged to ever recover.
The biggest problem is that organized medicine is governed by the power of the big pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies fund most of the cancer research being done, even that performed at universities, yet they will only fund the type of research that could possibly result in patented drugs that can bring them huge profits. Their goal is to make money, NOT to test whatever works. Since the FDA is intricately involved with and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies, it has now become a watchdog and strong arm of Big Pharma, rather than a protector of the American public as it was intended to be. So, while the pharmaceutical industry searches for profitable "silver bullets" to treat cancer, they are actively and knowingly ignoring the arsenal of alternative cancer treatments that already exist and have been proven effective.
Q#13: Is there a "conspiracy" to suppress alternative cancer treatments?
A: "Conspiracy" is probably not the best word to use here. Money and power are behind the veery real suppression that has been going on for decades, but it may not be so organized as to warrant the term "conspiracy." Behind most of the suppression lies the power of the pharmaceutical companies and their far-reaching influence. Some very enlightening books have exposed the documented details of how this has happened, including "World Without Cancer," by G. Edward Griffin, and "The Cancer Industry," by Dr. Ralph Moss.
We all know that there are big industries in existence today that pollute our air and water. Yet, that does not mean those corporations are operating under a "conspiracy" to pollute our environment. They are just doing what corporations do best – protecting their profits. In the cancer industry as well, corporations protect their profits. Unfortunately, this pursuit can involve unscrupulous methods as well as influencing laws. But it involves many different people in positions of power in many different organizations, and probably the better way to describe the cancer treatment suppression would be to say that various people and organizations are in "collusion" to keep alternative approaches that threaten Big Pharma profits suppressed.
Unfortunately, the way the whole medical approval system is set up for testing and accepting new treatments for cancer also supports this suppression. The process not only requires hundreds of millions of dollars to go through, but it is only set up for short-term testing of toxic drugs. Any approach that does NOT fit that mold will not be tested effectively. What would have happened if, before airplanes were developed, all scientific organizations had determined that a flying machine MUST have wings that flap like birds? Orville and Wilbur Wright's machine would not have fit that mold and would not have passed the testing that was set up for flapping wing contraptions. We might not be flying the friendly skies today if that had been the case!
Q#14: If the mainstream cancer industry has effectively suppressed alternative cancer treatments before, what will keep them from continuing to do so?
A: There is no doubt that they are certainly still trying to suppress effective alternative cancer treatments. Read the book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough," to find out just how recently the FDA has tried to stop non-toxic antineoplaston therapy for cancer. But I do believe that the Internet, which has only been available to the public in a widespread way for a little over a decade, will save us. As long as nothing can stop people from sharing information through the World Wide Web, we now have a chance to stop this deadly suppression by sharing information among ourselves!
I also think that the general public is becoming more and more ready to utilize their power to change legislation and to re-claim their right to medical freedom. The FDA, in particular, has strayed from its intended role of protecting the consumer public from unsafe treatments to becoming a "watchdog" and advocate for the pharmaceutical companies. It is up to us to become awayre of what is happening and to change this situation. We have the power if we choose to use it!
Q#15: If I want to use an alternative cancer treatment approach, should I still consult with a conventional oncologist first?
A: Yes. You should always consult with a qualified oncologist first, in my opinion. Not for the purpose of asking the oncologist what he or she thinks of the alternative treatment you are considering, but for other reasons. These reasons are many. First of all, you will want to get as accurate a diagnosis about your condition as possible. You will also want to find out what your best conventional treatment options are. As already mentioned in the answer to Question #8, conventional surgery alone may be curative for some cases and that might be an attractive option for certain people. And, in some cases where a person's cancer is already very advanced when they are first diagnosed, sometimes short-term radiation or short-term chemotherapy may be necessary to give the patient time for an alternative approach to work.
In consulting with a conventional oncologist, it is also very important to ask as many questions as possible. In Chapter 21 of my book, "Outsmart Your Cancer," I present a list of important questions you can ask to clarify your chances for recovery using the treatment course your oncologist is recommending. By doing so, you are giving yourself the best chance for understanding your options. Then, if the suggested conventional treatment approach does not appear to offer you the hope you are looking for, you can look into using an alternative approach instead. In some cases, a combination of conventional AND alternative treatment may be your best choice – at least for a while.
Last but not least, establishing a relationship with a conventional doctor is generally necessary at some point for assessing your progress. Even people using alternative approaches need diagnostic tests at various intervals for the purpose of assessing how they are doing or for any related problems that may occur.
Thus, conventional medical experts should always be consulted. And every cancer patient should be as open to evaluating what they have to offer as they are when it comes to evaluating what alternative medicine has to offer. However, the approach you decide to use for treating your cancer is YOUR decision. By being as informed as possible, you will be giving yourself the best chance for making the best possible decision.
Q#16: Can I use a conventional approach along with an alternative approach at the same time?
A: As mentioned above, sometimes that is the best choice. But sometimes it is not. You must do your homework and be as informed as possible. This involves finding out, as best you can, which approaches will offer you the best chance for recovery and also finding out what all the possible damaging side effects of the conventional treatment might be. You don't want to add a conventional approach that might in itself threaten your life if you already have an alternative approach you believe can save you.
Also, you must find out if the conventional approach and alternative approach could conflict with each other or not. This is VERY important when considering doing any two approaches at the same time, even two alternative approaches. In a desperate attempt to save their life, some people will think they'll have the best chance if they do as many different things together as they can. However, "more" is not always "better". There is no point in combining approaches if there is a chance the two approaches might cancel each other out, so please be sure to evaluate compatibility whenever considering more than one approach at a time.