Cancer - Advances, Knowledge, Integrative & Holistic Treatments

This article brings to light the fact that people have been able to cure their own cancer using natural and unproven remedies focused primarily on significant lifestyle changes, such as radically altering the diet, using herbs and supplements, and embracing social support. It points out that these approaches have no scientific basis and can give false hope.

As people become more informed and interested in natural approaches to helping to overcome cancer, there is bound to be considerable debate, disagreement and doubt over what works and what doesn’t work. On the one hand the conventional scientific approach will predictably support chemotherapy, radiation and surgery as the only viable standard of care. This is not an unreasonable view based on the past 50 years of scientific research, investment and focus of the medical system and pharmaceutical companies.

However on the other hand many people believe that the proclaimed ‘War on Cancer’ by President Nixon in the early 1970s has very little likelihood of success. Amidst the best of what science, medicine, research and money has been able to offer over more than 40 years of focus, cancer prevalence has now increased to affect 1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females. So it is not an unreasonable view that science does not yet have the answers.

Lately there have been popular and best-selling books written that have analyzed what cancer survivors have done who have had apparent spontaneous remission of their cancer without any use of the conventional science-based standard of care.

It is quite predictable that advocates and supporters of the conventional science-based standard of care speak out against these books and natural methods saying the approaches have not been scientifically proven, and offer false hope. In terms of false hope we also need to look at the conventional model and realize that after 40+ years of dedicated and focused research there is not only no cure, but the cancer incidence has increased significantly. So I suggest it is up to the individual patient to determine for themselves which approach has what degree of false hope.

It is very easy and convenient to relegate natural approaches to treatment into the “not been scientifically proven” basket, and to regard them as ‘anecdotal’ only. However if thousands of people are overcoming cancer by using non-conventional methods (as seems to be the case), then maybe we should be asking ourselves at what stage does ‘anecdotal’ evidence (i.e. unproven scientifically but proven in terms of evidence of outcome) begin to have some relevance? Surely there is a point at which it is normal and logical for that evidence to be relevant and significant. We may begin to wonder about the objectives - are we protecting science or are we protecting people.

Following cancer on a daily basis I get to see both sides of the argument. I report mostly on what is being discovered and researched in the conventional scientific world, simply because that is what is mostly reported in scientific journals and the media. However it certainly does seem to me that evidenced-based natural therapies surely warrant serious consideration, if only based on the fact that there seem to be thousands of cases of people overcoming their own cancer using various ‘non-proven’ methods. In addition there are hundreds of natural holistic practitioners and clinics worldwide helping cancer patients. Another consideration is that when ordinary people do things that seem to be able to achieve what previously was considered not possible (according to the conventional view) then those things may quickly become the normal approach for everybody. The fact that science cannot explain it, has very little relevance.

Science will always have its important role and relevance in society. But we certainly know that science’s focus on cancer for 40+ years does not have all the answers. Perhaps part of the problem is the desire to hang on to and understand everything from only the perspective of Newtonian science rather than embrace quantum science, and to step outside the box with a willingness to objectively consider the holistic principles, what nature has always been able to provide, what cultures have successfully done for thousands of years, and what today people are doing to help cure themselves of cancer. While it may not lead to the development of any patented medicines, may reduce the profits of some of the present drug therapies, and may turn out to be inconvenient in upsetting the status quo, it is something that needs to be done based on the growing evidence in front of us all.

Long ago in 1847 Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis had anecdotal evidence that doctors carried germs on their hands that infected patients, and therefore they should wash their hands before treating patients. However his anecdotal observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and as a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community and he was forced to leave his career. Let’s hope that same rigid unbending thinking and dogma does not still prevail in the contemporary medical system.