For acute conditions alternative treatments tend to be safe and free from the kind of side effects you are likely experience with drugs. That means you can always try something out and if it doesn’t work revert to the pharmacological approach. When it comes to conditions like cancer where the wrong choice might cost you precious time or even result in unnecessary death, the choice is not always so easy to make. No one wants to play Russian Roulette. A healthy skepticism is warranted. But I can tell you pointblank (sorry to extend the metaphor) that if chemotherapy was a treatment in the alternative sphere carrying the same cost, the same side-effects, and the same success rates, it wouldn’t just be illegal… it would be held as ultimate proof alternative therapists are barbaric, dangerous and unscientific.
I am not completely against mainstream treatments. Surgery for cancer is absolutely necessary sometimes. If you have a tumor impinging on a major organ – let’s say it’s pushing on your colon and making it impossible to pass waste – then you must have surgery. After that you can go on a nutrition and detox-based protocol to try stop it from coming back, if you choose. We should rightly be thankful we live in an age where we have access to skilled surgeons. But let’s not pretend mainstream cancer treatments always extend life. If we applied the same skepticism as we do to anything that isn’t “officially approved” we might be in for a quite a shock. They are not nearly as safe or effective as people are think they are. They continue more because they are paid for by the government and receive the endorsement of public health bodies that are supposed to be impartial but are in the pay of industry than because they are backed by good science. And because a cancer diagnosis is terrifying. Let’s take an honest look at where we’ve come to with cancer treatment, and then perhaps you can come back and tell me who the real quacks cashing in on the vulnerable are.
In 2004, an independently funded literature review of randomized clinical trials evaluated the effectiveness of chemotherapy in the five-year survival rate for twenty-two major malignancies among Australian and American patients. It concluded: “The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA... Cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival.”[1] And remember, kids, almost all studies in cancer are funded either by the manufacturers of these treatments or by organizations like The ACS, NCI and universities who accept money from the manufacturers and blackball scientists who pursue research in alternatives, so the truth could be worse than reported in the literature.
A 2017 paper published in JAMA Oncology revealed that of sixty-two new oncology drugs approved between 2003 and 2013, only 43% offered a survival benefit of three months or longer, 11% offered a survival benefit of less than three months, 15% had an unknown survival benefit and 30% offered no survival benefit at all, and 45% were associated with reduced patient safety.[2]
Now wait a minute – EX-CUSE-me??!! Did I just read that right? Almost half of new cancer treatments REDUCED patient safety? And this is admitted by the same people running around calling everyone else quacks and cranks while advocating the government actively ban people from pursuing the treatment of choice because they might be “unsafe” – when they can hardly fare any worse on them than half of the treatments that are “approved”!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to P$yk0Social to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.