NOW WHAT ?
The following are excerpts from the book “Cancer-Free, Your Guide to Gentle, Non-toxic Healing,” by Bill Henderson.
There are three main reasons why people die of cancer today. They are:
• Lack of information.
• Lack of discipline once they have the information.
• Blind trust in their oncologist (cancer doctors).
The word cancer in your diagnosis always creates fear. This is part of the culture we live in and the sense of helplessness we have about how to deal with cancer. What most people don’t understand is that cancer is one of the easiest of the degenerative conditions to reverse, once you understand what cancer is and the options available to you. Get informed and then decide which treatment method makes sense to you.
There are Four Essentials to a successful plan
Essential # 1: Attitude. Having a positive attitude is paramount to your treatment plan! How do you get and keep a positive attitude? Gain knowledge; learn about the wide variety of cancer survivors and how they survived. There is not a single magic bullet that heals all cancers. There are, however, literally hundreds of substances that are non-toxic and natural. Each one alone,or combined with others, has helped thousands of cancer patients get cancer-free. There are simple lifestyle changes (diet, supplements, exercise, and emotional peace) that restore health to cancer patients. Many of them are quite inexpensive or even free.
Taking Charge of Your Own Health Care: You will usually be urged to begin chemotherapy and/or radiation immediately. For the best chance of recovery, you must be prepared to resist this option. You, after all, are in charge. You should delay any decisions about interventions (surgery, chemotherapy,radiation, etc.) until you are well enough informed to make an intelligent decision. This is some times difficult because we have been trained from childhood that doctors have all the answers. It takes an intelligent, well informed patient to make a decision that is appropriate for them. Keep an open mind. Be prepared to accept controversy as a normal part of any treatment plan, and be strong. Family and friends are well meaning, but after a few hours of research you will have more knowledge about cancer and cancer options than even your doctor has. The reason for this is that the great majority of conventional doctors has never studied, or has never been trained in the alternative approaches to cancer therapy. We will cover this topic in more detail later.
Essential #2: Advocate. If you have been diagnosed with cancer, you need to find your closest friend or relative and ask them to be your advocate. Cancer evokes emotions in almost everyone that are hard to deal with. Fear may freeze you. You are quickly exposed to confusing terms and advice of all types from well-meaning family, friends, healthcare providers and other sources. You are preparing to do battle with the cancer “industry.” This plan may sometimes be difficult and stressful. The path may be controversial and you will need all the help and moral support you can get. You are going to need to do research to find the information and resources for your plan of action. Many cancer patients do not have either the energy or patience to devote to getting the information needed. Your advocate needs to accompany you to every doctor’s appointment. He or she must be committed to your recovery and have a good sense of humor. Your advocate must be willing to discuss options with your doctor and help you choose a second, third or fourth opinion doctor, if necessary. If you are the friend or a loved one who has been asked to be an advocate, accept gratefully. There is no more spiritually fulfilling and uplifting role in the world. Your service will quite possibly save your friend, or loved one’s life.
Essential #3: Choosing the right Medical Professional. Look for a doctor or healthcare professional who is not concerned only about treating symptoms and managing disease. Look for someone who has done unique research resulting in breakthrough knowledge about understanding the causes of cancer and treatments that work to reverse it at a cellular level. They should also be knowledgeable and be concerned about prevention of current and future cancer challenges. What is their approach for effectively preventing metastasis (the spread of cancer cells to other parts of the body); this (metastasis) is the cause of 90% of cancer deaths. Look for help in the alternative, complementary or integrative medicine. Questions you want to ask your health care provider are; How would you propose treating my type of cancer? If the answer is surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation. Ask about alternative treatments the doctor would support. I take/or want to take supplements as part of my treatment plan. How do you feel about that? The answer you want is “That is fine.” If the doctor advises you not to waste your money, or just eat a balanced diet, he does not understand nutrition or how to heal the body on a cellular level. Most medical doctors have little or no training in nutrition. I would like you to help me and advise me with my treatment plan, but I will be in charge of my own health care decisions. Is that consistent with your treatment approach? Again you want an enthusiastic yes.
Doctors that are arrogant, talk down to you, use words or expressions you do not understand, or think they have the only option for you, are dis-empowering. Once you have given up or lost control of your treatment program fear sets in again. You want a health care provider that “treats people, not disease.” Stay informed, and stay in control of your own treatment plan.
Essential #4: Action: Start treating yourself now! Don’t wait until you find the perfect medical professional. While you are searching for the right person to work with, start taking supplements which are inexpensive, and help any cancer treatment by making it easier to regain your health. Change your diet using the guidelines available to you from your healthcare provider. Take steps to cleanse and detoxify your body. Understand that most cancers have taken years to develop and grow. Don’t be rushed into any treatment and do not allow any invasive procedures such as a biopsy until you have gotten all the information. Biopsy and other invasive procedures run the risk of releasing cancer cells into your system which may lead to metastases. Once you understand cancer and your treatment option you can make an informed decision.
There are low cost, non-invasive, non-toxic approaches to cancer treatment that may reverse or cure cancer in as little as 6 to 8 weeks. If you can avoid conventional therapy – surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation for that long – you may never need to use it. Remember untreated cancer does not stop growing. You want to get started on an“informed treatment plan” that makes sense to you at the earliest possible time. The next few weeks are critical to your recovery. Make an intelligent and informed choice.
Putting Things In Perspective. Part of making informed decisions is to understand your options and the influences which contribute to the various options.
The following are excerpts by Dr. David Darbo from the book “Green Leaves of Barley – Nature’s Miracle Rejuvenator”by Dr. Mary Ruth Swope and David A. Darbo, M.D.
After I graduated from medical school, I spent fifteen years doing just what they had taught me: to prescribe drugs. I began to realize my patients never actually got well. If they had high blood pressure, for instance, I could control it by giving them appropriate medication, but the problem itself would return the minute the medication was discontinued. It dawned on me that all I had accomplished in spending five years and thousands of dollars in medical schools was that I had learned how to maintain disease at an acceptable level. Let’s review the historical and philosophical roots of traditional medicine and alternative or preventive medicine. “I am NOT in any way criticizing the noble men and women who dedicate their lives to saving the lives of others. The hospitals in the U.S. are first-rate, equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and staffed with skilled technicians, nurses and physicians. In a medical emergency, there is nowhere on earth I’d rather be. It is necessary to act dramatically in crisis situations, and the medical profession is to be applauded for its skill in dealing with catastrophic illness. My hat is off to the established medical order within the context of crisis care.
The problem is not how the medical system operates in its own context but how it fails to maintain health.”
Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” lived 400 years before Christ, and doctored in his native Greece with such skill that men from all over the ancient world came to learn from him. Even today, young doctors graduating from medical school traditionally take the Hippocratic Oath. The debate which continues today began with the issue on which belief system the doctor opts for – to practice from experience or to practice from theory. These two methods are known as empiricism and rationalism.
EMPIRICISM: Webster defines it as pertaining to, founded upon, or derived from, experience: one who relies on practical experience to guide his actions.” The earliest medicine was practiced from an empirical standpoint – the common sense method. I see something works, so I do it. I might not understand why it works, but the fact that it does work is more important to me than the explanation why.
Cancer-Free – Your Guide to Gentle, Non-Toxic Healing, by Bill Henderson
Hippocrates observed that the body has a tendency to heal itself. It is nature that finds the way to preserve a perfect equilibrium, to re-establish order and harmony. Hippocrates taught that nature is the best healer and that physicians should work with nature. He saw the importance in being in harmony with nature. He is credited as saying, “Food is your best medicine and the best foods are the best medicines.” His teachings concentrated more upon seeing the patient as a unique individual interacting to his own environment than as a patient exhibiting a specific disease. Symptoms were regarded by the empirical physician as the result of the body’s reactions to what it encounters from the outside world, and the goal of the physician was to bring the body back into balance. The emphasis is on the general state of a patient’s wellness, not the particular manifestation of a specific disease. He believed the body was capable of healing itself; the task is to promote the general wellness of the body so it would be strong enough to rid itself of a particular disease. The doctor is seen as a teacher, an assistant to the healing process, not the crucial figure in the healing process. Hippocrates’ cardinal rule of thumb was “First, do no harm.” Remember this, because in the context of modern medicine it becomes significant. The keyto empiricism in medicine are “practical experience” and “promoting wellness.”
RATIONALISM: Ancient Greece also produced another viewpoint, from which have arisen the medical giants of today. Its most famous proponent was the physician, Galen, who lived several hundred years after Hippocrates, but Galen got his philosophy of medicine from the great philosopher, Aristotle. Aristotle is credited with being the first person to divide up and categorize knowledge in a thorough, systematic order. But order, reason and logic eventually came into conflict with the healing arts of empiricism. What evolved was a system of viewing our universe in a constant striving for greater precision in analyzing the world around us. When applied to the field of medicine, caused it to rigidly oppose anything it couldn’t understand by logic or deduction.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDICINE IN U.S.: In the United States both traditions – empirical and rationalist – were thriving nicely in the beginning. It didn’t take long, however, for professional discord to set in. By the early nineteenth century, the two traditions were locked in an idealistic battle. The empiricists practiced homeopathy and herbal medicine. Many of these treatments, even today, we do not understand the mechanism behind the success of the treatment, but it is an undeniable fact it works. The easiest way to sum up the essential difference in the two approaches to medicine is to understand that empiricists use “similars” and rationalists use “opposites.” The health practitioner who uses similars wants to gently stimulate the patient’s healing responses; he doesn’t want to upset the “balance” any more than it is already upset. A person coming from the rationalist tradition, however, views disease in a completely different manner. He doesn’t think in terms of promoting health but rather in terms of fighting disease. What is the enemy? Disease, of course. What needs to be done? Fight and conquer the enemy. How do you do that? Oppose the problem. Make the body do the opposite of what it is doing, (“Allo” means opposite, therefore, current medicine founded upon the rationalistic tradition is called “allopathic.”) The perspective is different here, and leads to wide extremes in selection of treatment. Take for example a person with diarrhea. If his doctor is from the allopathic school he will likely prescribe a drug that slows up the movement of the bowel. Since diarrhea is caused by too much bowel activity, he will treat it with the opposite – a substance to slow its normal activity down to almost nothing. If, however, his doctor is from the empirical approach, he might suggest a very gentle enema to cleanse out the bowel – an action similar to how the body is already coping with this particular imbalance. In 1849 the American Medical Association was founded by the allopathic physicians and has, for the last 150 years had a tradition of opposing any intellectual opposition. Not only did they bar homeopathic doctors from its ranks, it prohibited its own membership from using any homeopathic techniques. It barred physicians who referred patients to homeopaths or who worked at hospitals where homeopaths were allowed to practice. With the coming of the Civil War, another major change in medicine took place. Prior to this time, doctors themselves were familiar with the ingredients they prescribed for their patients. Now the compounding of medicines became centralized, doctors no longer needed to bother learning their own business – pharmaceutical companies not only identified the products to be used, but they advised the doctor as to what diseases the products could be use for. Within a very few years, there were thousands of patented medicines. So what you ask? The pharmaceutical industry began producing literature to educate the doctor to new diseases and methods of cure using the compounded formulas they had patented. They developed the idea of the industry sending out “detail-men,” sales persons trained to educate doctors, give free samples and provide literature. This strategy is still in widespread use today, but in the 1880’s it was of an even greater impact. In many parts of the country, because of poor or non-existent roads, physicians simply did not travel. There were few conventions and no refresher courses in those days. For many the drug salesman became the key method of “staying up” with medical research. Some of the pharmaceutical houses even supplied pharmacists with the financing, pamphlets, and supplies to begin their businesses. With the drug industry supporting both the pharmacists and physicians, it had no competition except with itself, and medicine gradually evolved into a drug-industry-oriented treatment philosophy. Between 1877 and 1883 Parke-Davis bought several successful medical journals, each headed by orthodox physicians, professors and prestigious medical schools. These entities were now on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. The drug industry’s companion technique was advertising. Of the 250 medical journals in existence in 1906, all but one was supported by advertising from the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to seduce physicians through detail persons, free seminars, drug-testing and research, journal ownership, and advertising should be well known to you all. Physicians had once been open to any therapeutic system that appealed to a rationalist’s intellect. Now they assumed that the only answer was pharmaceutical. I am the first to admit that pharmaceuticals have saved thousands of lives and certainly have a valid place in the practice of medicine. But when we look at drugs in the larger context of the healing arts, we come up with some major problems. For each desired action of a drug, there are usually numerous undesired actions – side effects. Because of the toxicity of drugs, one of the major tasks of a physician’s work is to assess what we call the “risk-benefit factor.” Will we harm the patient more by giving the drug or by withholding it? Most weapons against disease are also weapons against health. Anti-disease is NOT the same as pro-health. Obviously, if a person is in an accident and breaks bones or needs lacerations sutured, alternative medicine is not appropriate. Thank God for our fine emergency rooms! Likewise, if an appendix has ruptured it needs to be taken out by a skillful surgeon in a hospital setting. God bless our fine surgeons! If someone is having a heart attack, he needs to have an ambulance take him to the emergency room. In its place, medicine as we know it is good and is needed.
What makes me rebel is not that I don’t appreciate it for what it is, but that I don’t see it as the whole answer for the problem of illness. Modern medicine is responsible for eradicating a host of diseases in which micro- organisms are the primary cause. Yet we still have disease. If medicine has done such a good job of stamping out disease, why are health care costs so high? And why are physicians ignoring the use of nutrition as a treatment modality when it is a well-known fact that 70 percent of all deaths in the United States are caused by diseases linked to the consumption of our diet. The average medical doctor isn’t opposed to good nutrition; it’s just that he doesn’t see its relationship to the practice of medicine. The idea of helping the body in a general way rather than combating a specific problem in the body is totally foreign to him. His training taught him that “scientific proof” is necessary to validate everything. If it’s not in his medical literature, it’s not any good.So clinical nutrition, herbal remedies, drug-less medicine, and the like, are worthless to him because there’s no “proof” they work. He cares nothing for the fact that the patients get better – getting better isn’t scientific enough.“ Classical science assigns little value to knowing simply that something works. It assigns a much higher value to knowing how something works. As a result, it’s scientifically possible, perhaps even required, to call a therapy “unscientific’ or ‘unproven’ simply because scientists do not know how it works, even if there’s evidence that it does work, and even though knowing how something works doesn’t change its therapeutic value.” The very gentleness that pleases patients and tends to avoid side effects, also makes proving that the natural healing did it, almost impossible, at least to the classically trained scientists. As a result, those scientists generally call natural healing ‘unproven’ and ‘unscientific,’ while it is actually neither. It is simply another way of thinking, as logical and internally consistent as medicine, and with its own message of proof.”
Power, Politics and Profit
Let’s take another quick look at the history of science and the struggle against entrenched errors. Many of the world’s greatest discoveries initially were rejected by the scientific community. And those who pioneered those discoveries often were ridiculed and condemned as quacks or charlatans. In the field of medicine, in the year 130 A.D. the physician Galen postulated certain anatomical theories that later proved to be correct, but at the time he was bitterly opposed. In the Sixteenth Century, the physician Andreas Vesalius was denounced as an imposter and heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy. His theories were accepted after his death but, at the time, his career was ruined, and he was forced to flee from Italy. William Harvey was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart and actually moved around the body through arteries. William Roentgen, the discoverer of X-rays, at first was called a quack and then condemned out of fear that his ray would invade the privacy of the bedroom. William Jenner, when he first developed a vaccine against smallpox, also was called a quack and was strongly criticized as a physician. Centuries ago it was not unusual for entire naval expeditions to be wiped out by scurvy, a vitamin deficiency. Between 1600 and 1800 the casualty list of the British Navy alone was over one million sailors. Medical experts of the time were baffled as they searched in vain for some kind of strange bacterium, virus, or toxin that supposedly lurked in the dark holds of ships. And yet, for hundreds of years, the cure was already known and written in the record.
In the winter of 1535, when the French explorer Jacques Cartier found his ships frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River, scurvy began to take its deadly toll. Out of a crew of one hundred and ten, twenty-five already had died, and most of the others were so ill they weren’t expected to recover. And then a friendly Indian showed them the simple remedy. Tree bark and needles from the white pine, both rich in ascorbic acid (vitamin C), were stirred into a drink which produced immediate improvement and swift recovery. Upon returning to Europe, Cartier reported this incident to the medical authorities. But they were amused by such “witch-doctor cures of ignorant savages” and did nothing to follow it up. Yes, the cure for scurvy was known. But, because of scientific arrogance, it took over two hundred years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives before the medical experts began to accept and apply this knowledge. Finally, in 1747 (212 years after Jacques Cartier’s report), John Lind, a young surgeon’s mate in the British Navy discovered that oranges and lemons produced relief from scurvy, and recommended that the Royal Navy include citrus fruits in the stores of all its ships. And yet, it still took forty-eight more years before his recommendation was put into effect. When it was, the British were able to surpass all other sea-faring nations, and the “Limeys” (so-called because they carried limes aboard ship) soon became the rulers of the Seven Seas because their ships could stay at sea for extended periods. It is no exaggeration to say that the greatness of the British Empire in large measure was the direct result of overcoming scientific prejudice against vitamin therapy. It took them 260 years to implement this simple plan. In 1841 Ignatz Semmelweis, an obstetrician was hired to oversee 2 maternity wards in a Vienna hospital; one run by midwives and the other by physicians and their medical students. He noted the deaths due to a streptococcal infection (“childbirth fever”) were much higher in the physicians ward (one death in every three patients), as compared to deaths in the midwives ward (almost non-existent). As unbelievable as it seems, professors and their students in medical universities went from the dissecting room where they worked on cadavers (dead bodies), to the delivery rooms where they examined women about to give birth – all without washing or disinfecting their hands. A gratuitous rubbing of their bloody hands on their lab coats was considered ample, and in fact the presence of bloody matter on their coats was deemed almost a badge of honor. At the time the medical establishment assumed the mothers were dying of various causes such as bowel obstruction and that the babies were dying due to bad breast milk. Dr. Semmelweis theorized that the infections were due to bacterial matter coming from the cadavers. Semmelweis turned that all around in a revolution that was to save millions of new mothers’ lives all over the world. He instituted strict hand-washing procedures for physicians and he could be considered the father of infection control. Despite the fact that the death rate dropped to zero in the first year he was extremely unpopular with the physicians and his innovation was unwelcome in a university whose job was deemed to be that of teaching what was known of medicine as it existed at the time. The students that complained he discharged. Some of the students fought back and Semmelweis was removed from his position at the hospital. As soon as the hand washing was suspended, the death rate of the women returned to where it was before, almost 30% of all patients. One in three of the thousands of women per year who came to the physicians ward died within days after a normal child birth experience. To the hospital administrators, this was the natural order of things; to Dr. Semmelweis, this was murder.
There will always be doctors who want to heal people and be innovative, but, there are also those who are more interested in making a secure position for themselves using power, politics and profit in medicine. One of Semmelweis’ disciples explained how he saw the situation. “It’s true of your discovery as it has been of every discovery in the whole history of medicine. Every time a man has come forward with a demonstrable truth, a remedy for good, the profession seems to have done its best to crush the discoverer and hide the discovery. No quackery – no criminality – nothing seems to make us so furious as a discovery.” Finally Semmelweis was also stripped of his teaching position at the university and was blocked from private practice where he could use and teach students to use his methods. Running out of money he returned to Hungary and worked in a very small clinic where the death rate from childbirth fever dropped to zero. He published papers around the world and the journal editors added footnotes to the effect that “Everyone knows the cause of childbirth fever is – – – and they would add in whatever their pet theory was. He then wrote a book on his work, but those that needed it most never read it, because it was a new theory and they were in a profession that respected the old tried and true methods. Semmelweis died in obscurity in Hungary at the age of about fifty. He was put in an institution because he lost his mental stability due to, seemingly intelligent doctors who denied his conclusion. It took 40 years before hand-washing was taught and accepted by the profession. The work he pioneered has saved untold millions of lives.
Other comments from the medical professionals;
What? Yellow fever could be transmitted by mosquitoes? What a ridiculous idea. Just like thinking that embryonic stem-cell research might hold life-saving potential. Or that global warming is any more than a liberal myth. Or that Anton von Leeuwenhoek could actually see tiny creature in a drop of pond water when he looked through his new gimmick, the microscope. Or that Galileo, peering through a homemade cardboard tube, could say the earth is not, after all, the center of the universe. Or that it might be possible to put a person to sleep so deeply that he would not feel the amputation of his leg. Pure silliness. How can right-thinking persons believe such stuff?
The Twentieth Century has proven to be no exception to this pattern. Large portions of the American Southeast were decimated by the dread disease pellagra. The well-known physician Sir William Osler, in his Principles and Practice of Medicine, explained that in one institution for the insane in Leonard, North Carolina, one-third of the inmates died of this disease during the winter months. This proved he said, that pellagra was contagious and caused probably by an as yet undiscovered virus. As far back as 1914, however, Dr. Joseph Goldberger had proven that this condition was related to diet, and later showed that it could be prevented simply by eating liver or yeast. But it wasn’t until the 1940’s – almost thirty years later – that the “modern” medical world fully accepted pellagra as a vitamin B deficiency. The story behind pernicious anemia is almost exactly the same. The reason that all these diseases were so reluctantly accepted as vitamin deficiencies is because men tend to look for positive cause-and-effect relationships in which something clearly caused something else. They find it more difficult to comprehend the negative relationship in which nothing or the lack of something can cause an effect. But perhaps of even more importance is the reality of intellectual pride. A man who has spent his lifetime acquiring scientific knowledge far beyond the grasp of his fellow human beings is not usually inclined to listen with patience to someone who lacks that knowledge – especially if that person suggests that the solution to the scientist’s most puzzling medical problem is to be found in a simple near-primitive concoction of herbs and foods. The scientist is trained to search for complex answers and tends to look with smug amusement upon solutions that are not dependent upon his hard earned skills. To bring this a little closer to home, the average M.D. today has spent over ten years of intensive training to learn about health and disease. This educational process continues for as long as he practices his art. The greatest challenge to the medical profession today is cancer. If the solution to the cancer puzzle were to be found in the simple foods we eat (or don’t eat), then what other diseases might also be traced to this cause? The implications are explosive. As one doctor put it, “Most of my medical training has been wasted. I’ve learned the wrong things!” And nobody wants to discover that they have learned – or taught – the wrong things. Hence, there is an unconscious but quite natural tendency among many scientists and physicians to reject the vitamin deficiency concept of all such diseases until it is proven, and proven, and proven again.
The Western (Traditional) Doctor:
Put yourself in your doctor’s shoes. He or she was trained in a medical school where the pharmaceutical companies, for the most part, determine the curriculum. The pharmaceutical companies provide most of the research and grant money. They provide many of the books, C.D.s and study materials, at little or no cost to the student. Conventional medicine is taught with a focus on treating the symptoms of a disease with synthetic drugs and surgery, but they are rarely taught to treat the underlying causes of the disease. Once the doctor is in practice, the pharmaceutical company representatives show up regularly, leaving free samples of drugs and brochures promoting the benefits of their products. As the doctor begins to specialize their focus is more narrowly defined and trying to keep up with the current information on research and studies, even in their own specialty is virtually impossible because of the demands of patient care on their time. So they rely on the information from the pharmaceutical salespersons. Almost all of the continuing education comes from seminars sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies. The average doctor receives two clock hours (not credit hours) on nutrition and preventive medicine. The doctor is under extreme pressure to keep patient face-to-face time to a bare minimum. One study showed that the average patient spends only two minutes with the doctor during each visit. The traditional doctor sees numerous patients per day. Once you receive a diagnosis you will be referred to an Oncologist. This is a doctor trained in the specialty of cancer treatment. Traditional medicine has three standard treatment methods for cancer; surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. With only minor changes, this is the same treatment protocol that was used 50 years ago. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed that there has been no substantial improvement in cancer cure rates over the last several decades. However, even with such cures, there is a high incidence of delayed, or secondary, cancers due to the carcinogenic effects of the treatments themselves. The focus of treatment is on attacking the cancer – BUT – the big question is how did the cancer start in the first place? And what can we do now to restore that health?
Your doctor was trained in schools where the curriculum is determined by the drug companies. The doctor received free books, equipment and other gifts from the drug companies throughout his education. Once the doctor graduates the drug companies give them free samples, free dinners and free vacation trips where they discuss new pharmaceutical products. This is called continuing education which is required to renew and maintain the doctor’s medical license. There is little incentive for doctors to learn alternative care methods and in fact it is discouraged by the political powers that run the various medical groups and associations.
Over the past 70 years, hundreds of successful treatments for cancer have been discovered and used successfully. Would it surprise you to know that every one of these is currently on the “Unproven Remedies” list maintained by the American Cancer Society (ACS)? Dr. Linus Pauling, the only person to ever win two individual Nobel Prizes, has done research on vitamin C and cholesterol, and their role in preventing heart attacks and cancer and his research has been suppressed since 1989. Doesn’t it seem logical that at least one of these treatments would have been thoroughly researched and investigated and found to have some use for at least some cancer sufferers? Isn’t it mind-boggling that every single one is still labeled “unproven,” in spite of the lapse of decades since their discovery? What do all these treatments have in common? They all contain natural products, not synthetic substances. For the most part they are very inexpensive, have few if any side- effects and generally have no patents. Because natural products cannot be patented, anyone can sell them, this keeps the cost down. The pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, are interested in synthetic products which they can patent and have the exclusive rights to sell. This allows them to make tremendous profits, and it allows them to pay the average of $210,000,000 per drug for research and the approval processes. This process (by design) effectively shuts out the inexpensive, natural products from the approval process which benefits the pharmaceutical companies by limiting their competition. Many of these natural products have been used successfully for hundreds, even thousands of years. Most of them are currently being used, successfully, in many other countries around the world. The reality is a low cost, effective cancer treatment would have a devastating economic effect on the multi-billion dollar medical industry.
What are your options? The Eastern (natural) medicine practitioner comes from a tradition of observing nature and balancing the elements that create homeostasis (balance in the body). This ancient tradition dates back 5,000 years and is the oldest, literate, continuously practiced form of medicine in the world. The practitioner starts the process by taking an in-depth medical history and looking for any causes of imbalance such as disease, physical injury, diet, lifestyle, mental or emotional stress. They will generally make recommendations to cleanse and detoxify the body, modify the diet, compensate for any vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies, balance the pH, electrolyte and hormone levels, recommend suitable exercise programs which may include stress reduction activities. Then using natural products to strengthen the immune system which allows the body to naturally cleanse and clear out disease at the cellular level. The role of this practitioner is one as teacher, adviser, and confidant in developing a health program specifically designed for you. In eastern medicine the focus is on the person, not on the disease. A disease process is simply a symptom that appears when there is a weakness or imbalance in the body. In Eastern medicine the focus is on bringing the body back into balance thereby allowing the body to heal itself. The focus is not on eliminating sickness and ill-health, but on healing and building vibrant health. It is important to understand that everybody has cancer cells which you have had all your life. In a state of homeostasis the immune system detects and destroys these mutated cells. At some point, often after years of smoking and/or poor diet and lifestyle, the body receives a toxic overload or some other insult which weakens the immune system and allows the cancer cells to grow.
Contact us for more information:
There are numerous non-invasive treatment protocols available. There is no one treatment that is successful for every cancer. But after your first visit a comprehensive treatment program will be recommended. For more information and/or to make an appointment contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org