Spontaneous Healing of Cancer
From the desk of Dr Magne, author of Cancer Free For Life
Everyone has the ability to heal. This is built into our physical, emotional, and spiritual natures as human beings. Cancer cells manifest a dysfunction where the only goal is to multiply, unaware that they’re bringing about their own destruction by destroying the organism of which they are a part.
In medical terminology, spontaneous healing of cancer refers to exceptional and unexplained partial or complete disappearance of cancer without medical intervention. Healing is as integral to life as is injury. There is nothing exceptional about a cancer cell reverting to a “normal” non-cancerous behavior. None of us would have been alive if it didn’t occur. We all have cancer cells in our body, which get eliminated by a healthy immune system.
Spontaneous healing of cancer is Nature’s expression of her willingness to yield its secrets of cancer healingof how a cancer cell can change its dynamics back to a state of health. It offers a solid base of hopeboth for the patient who suffers from cancer and for his physician. It is not an uncommon occurrence. Even if it happened only once, it still firmly establishes the possibility. Spontaneous healing of cancer also opens the door to all non-drug, restorative therapies that are known to facilitate the healing response in the human body.
How rare are spontaneous remissions when defined as tumor regression without chemotherapy? The answer depends on who you ask. Physicians who specialize in non-drug, natural cancer therapies will cite a very large number of cases to support their view that cancer remission without chemotherapy or radiotherapy is not uncommon. Most oncologists will dismiss such claims as blatant lies.
Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography lists 1,051 case reports published in peer-reviewed medical literature. Spontaneous healing of cancer is not at all an uncommon event in the experience of pathologists, yet it’s a rare pathologist who prepares a formal report for publication of such cases.
Patients whose advanced cancers spontaneously heal challenge the deepest beliefs of most oncologists and radiotherapists. Usually the cancer medical staff dismiss the subject as insignificant and irrelevant to their work. Many patients refuse chemotherapy recommended by oncologists, and months or years later they return to tell of their success with non-drug therapies.
What is spontaneous healing of cancer? It’s a war against cancer that the body’s own dynamics, antioxidant defenses and DNA repair enzyme systems winsit’s that simple! Spontaneous healing gives clues to what therapies we might choose to facilitate the healing processes that normally control cancer- and coaxes the errant cells back to a healthful mode. This is the core principle of non-drug therapies for cancer management.
Everyone knows or has heard of people who were expected to die of cancer in several months or a few years but who defied their medical prognostic and underwent spontaneous remission. I know of hundreds of patients who had limited cancers that could be surgically removed, and so had little reason to die of the tumor. Yet, they succumbed quickly. I also know of many patients who lived for decades with cancers that had been originally pronounced terminal. What can one make of such cases?
When you think and feel the thought “I’m happy”, a chemical messenger translates the emotion into a bit of matter precisely attuned to your desire, so that every cell in your body jumps to attention like a good soldier, learns of the happiness and joins in. You have the ability to shift your body from one extreme emotion to the other, and that way affect your physiology.
This is the access to another world that you carry inside you, but is difficult to reach except with the techniques of meditation or hypnotherapy. The body is an image projected by the mind, and in a state of health, the mind keeps this image intact and balanced. However, injury and pain can cause us to withdraw our attention from the affected spot. In that case, the body image starts to deteriorate, its energy patterns energy patterns become impaired, unhealthy. So a healer restores the correct pattern this is done instantly, on the spot after which the patient’s own mind takes responsibility for maintaining it that way. Visit http://www.cancer-free-for-life.com for more information on healing of cancer.
The mind controls the body in uncontrollable ways. You can’t usually stop your heart, or lower your body temperature. Some extremely rare human beings, such as yogis in Tibet, can actually do so in scientific tests. Yet, these are functions regulated by the brain. Consider the reaction to fear: your heartbeat is elevated, you breathe faster. But how does it happen? In your brain, you make a connection between a particular situation and a sense of impending danger to your body. Where does that connection occur but in the brain!
It’s extremely difficult for the Western mind to let go of the stream of consciousness. Meditation is a process where one has to sink up or down, transcending beyond the ordinariness of our everyday thoughts. The results are inconsistent due to the lack of knowledge that our thought processes can vary, from deep to shallow, with completely different results. For healing to occur, it’s necessary to go deep, to contact the hidden blueprint of intelligence to rearrange it, reorganize it. People thoughts’ powers are too weak, and their belief in the effectiveness of the method too superficial. More FREE articles on spontaneous healing of cancer are available on http://www.cancer-free-for-life.com
Dr Laurence Magne
Publisher, Author
Cancer Free For Life
Mail : lmagne@yahoo.com
Website :http://cancer-free-for-life.com
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More Natural Cancer Therapies Articles
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by 
Natural Cures for Cancer
Well it should, however you probably think it will never happen to you. In the US one in every 2 men and one in every 3 women will be diagnosed with some form of Cancer and the Canadian statistics are very similar. Cancer is not the only disease that we should be concerned about in today’s environment, depending on underlying factors the flu or the common cold could be deadly to some people. Due to poor diets, lack of exercise and daily stress most immune systems are so far out of balance they could not even begin to protect us against the smallest of infections or bacteria and one seeks Natural cures for cancer.
In Natural cures for cancer or treatment, doctors believe that the primary cause of cancer is an unhealthy diet and lifestyle. Their solution to getting rid of cancer involves eliminating the root cause of cancer and not just the symptoms. Contrary to what most of us consider as a nutritious diet, an average person’s diet is made up of toxic food like processed food, dairy products and meat. This poisons and impairs the immune system and causes diseases. By keeping the immune system up, our bodies can heal itself and annihilate the cancer cells naturally from within and this could be natural cures for cancer.
Selecting a Natural cures for cancer
With so many natural cures for cancer to choose from, it is normal that most people find it dreadful to pick the right method. Natural cancer treatments are not quick fixes and you will be required to make massive changes to your current diet and lifestyle to facilitate your body’s natural healing capabilities. The treatments usually consists of lifestyle changes like getting sufficient rest, fresh air, daily exercise, sunshine and faith in God in some religious treatment centers.
Many natural supplements support the immune system. The trick is the find and use the ones that work the best, as it is easy to squander resources on products that won’t get the job done. The other concern is to make sure you take enough. Cancer is not something to pussyfoot around with. Taking 5 to 10 times the normal supplemental amount seems to work best when using natural supplements.
The dietary changes include the elimination of junk food, sugar, fat laden food and processed food.
Healthy replacements such as organic fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, juices, pure water or animal products (extremely rare). Your choice of treatment will be influenced by your desire to change your lifestyle, religious beliefs, budget and your current location. These treatments may seem expensive if you look at the cost of organic food and other health supplements but once you compare it the costs of going through chemotherapy and radiation, it seems like a bargain as they all are great source of natural cures for cancer.
The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, and others. It can be used instead of standard oncological cancer therapy. This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side effects.
Read About New Born Baby
Guide Also read about New
Born Baby Guide and Baby
Supplements
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies: Can Having Good Friends Reduce The Chance Of Dying?
Another animal study has shown the importance of having company to prevent cancer occurring and in reducing of the likelihood of death from cancer. It is clear that for both animals and humans having good friends definitely improves the quality of life, and now, possibly, lack of friends might even be a matter of life or death. However researchers are still unsure of many of the mechanisms by which social isolation might contribute to the development of cancer.
We all know of wonderful people who have had lots of friends who socialized a good deal and who still died of cancer. I am not saying that not having friends is the one cause of cancer.
But we need to acknowledge the increasing evidence that having good friends can be a buffer to both prevent cancer occurring in the first place and if it does occur, to improve ones chances of a better outcome – either a complete recovery or a longer time till death. My own research findings also come to the same conclusions.
I have never had a doctor ask me about my relationships with friends, or even within my family, and yet there is clear evidence of their importance to health. As I work with doctors I’ve asked a few of them why this lack of interest in patients’ sociability might be. Their response was that it is not their business to interfere, or even take an interest in, a patient’s relationships. It is outside their sphere of management.
As you are unlikely to hear from your doctor that good relationships are beneficial to your health right down to the cellular and organ level then you need to take the message on board from elsewhere and take responsibility for improving your relationships as part of your overall health care.
So if you know you are short on friends don’t take it badly. Friends die. They shift away. They or you can change. Or you might just look at your current friends and decide that they no longer contribute sufficient positive aspects to your life.
One of the patients in my big study had no friends at all when she first got cancer. Apart from a loving husband and two absent children she had no positive input from people into her life. She started to deal with her cancer by paying for human contact. She paid for a masseur, for time with a homeopath, joined a healing group and slowly made progress from there.
Another loner was a farmer who lived in the outback miles from anywhere. He gave up farming and moved into the city. His situation was different because he was naturally gregarious and made friends easily.
You don’t need lots of friends, somewhere between five and nine seems to work well from a health perspective. Family can count in the friend mix, but you are looking for people who contribute positively to your well-being and you to theirs. You are looking for at least one person who makes you feel significant, one who makes you feel connected and loved, one who can be trusted to help you and gives you a sense of security and someone who gives a sense of fun, enjoyment and variety in life.
As my study showed sometimes you must adapt, even to purchase the support you need and this is a positive alternative if your natural circle of friends is missing a category of need. It makes sense to have a good group of friends. You may not be thinking in terms of your own natural cancer therapies but friendships are good and improve your quality of life. Take the time to consider what your friends add to your life and if necessary set out to increase the number of positive people around you.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies: Supplements and Drug Cautions
“XXX May Offer Health Benefits, But Evidence Still Limited” was the headline about a natural cancer therapy. This was in sharp contrast to an overblown television report about a new cancer drug which was reported to be the hope of all cancer sufferers for the decade.
When we hear about research results from the media we need to become aware of the types of language that is being used to describe the findings of the studies. In medical reports findings tend to be cautious unless it has been written by one of the pharmaceutical company ghost writers.
When the media reports on a positive finding about a natural product doctors are wheeled out and asked to provide a “balanced” report, discussing why it isn’t as great as it seems and everything that could go wrong by way of possible negative side effects. The doctors are very obliging.
However when the report is about a new drug that patients have trialled, the drug company provides the television reporter with a number of very happy patients who did well on the drug. In these cases I do not remember ever seeing a cautious doctor being paraded in front of the camera to provide warnings, nor to decode the company statistics which if done would show that the results are nowhere near as good as the drug company marketing would suggest. Cautions are only provided for a product that drug companies cannot make a huge amount of money from.
Not all natural products are worth taking, of course. There are a lot of natural plants and derivatives of plants which are poisonous, and a common sense approach is always needed.
However any plant which has been in our diet for generations and any mineral which is scientifically shown to be essential to the health of humans can be safely taken by most of us without concern. Where research has shown that an item like tea (black, white, or green) is likely to be beneficial to health then there is no need to be concerned. If you like it, drink it. Whether it is has been proven to medical standards to work for a particular inflammatory condition is irrelevant. One positive research finding can be sufficient to reasonably add it to your diet.
The same can be said about selenium and cancer. Selenium is an essential mineral and has been shown in a range of studies to be beneficial both in the prevention and treatment of a range of cancers, despite many cancer societies saying the evidence is not yet in to say so. As each person requires selenium anyway then taking the small amounts in a supplement is likely to do more good than harm.
I get very irritated about those professionals who gravely inform the public about the supposed dangers of supplements and the problems they can cause. I understand that there has only been one possible death in the last years that might have been attributable to an overdose of a supplement. Please note these qualifications as it wasn’t actually proven.
However properly prescribed drugs are the third highest cause of deaths in the US. That is, drugs prescribed in hospitals kill more people than all accidents and respiratory diseases. Only cardiovascular diseases and cancer cause more deaths than legal drugs prescribed in hospital. Note the “in hospital” component of the statement. Deaths from properly prescribed drugs taken outside hospital are additional, as are medical mistakes and patient mistakes.
There is a strong media bias both in medical journals and in the mainstream media against natural health products. It is time for us all to become educated to interpret what is being said.
Any drug which is not identical with what the body needs (i.e. as a food or natural supplement) is treated by the body as a toxin, a poison. This is not sensationalism. It is just a fact. When a toxin is given the immune system swings into action to remove it from the body.
There are occasions when it is useful to have drugs, such as painkillers after a car crash, or antibiotics for bacterial meningitis and in cases such as these, plus many lesser conditions, we may well decide to take the drugs on offer. However it is important to know that even these drugs are toxins and require to be removed from the body thus putting pressure on the immune system. Some drugs have the potential to really improve a person’s quality of life. All drugs have the potential for nasty side effects. It is drugs that we have to be very careful of, not natural products.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies vs Conventional Treatments
There is a much quoted study on the natural cancer therapies websites. The quote says that 75% of cancer doctors would not take chemotherapy for cancer due to the toxicity of the drugs. The quote is very much out of context but is indicative of some of the issues. However the paper says very much more. It was a paper that asked doctors who care for patients with cancer if they would take part in different types of treatment trials if they themselves had cancer. This was a study from over 20 years ago but I would have to ask if things have changed at all in the time since it was done.
Four different scenarios (different presentations of lung cancer) were given to the doctors. They were asked if they had that type of cancer would they take part in a study comparing different treatments. All the trials they evaluated were chosen to show the different types of study that were taking place at the time that the study was done. They were asked what treatment they thought was best for each condition, then if they would participate in a particular trial and if not, why not.
It was interesting that the chemo trials were not well liked, with only 11-31% potentially agreeing to participate. Of those who didn’t between 60% and 75% stated they wouldn’t because chemotherapy was too toxic and between 58% and 76% stated that chemotherapy was an ineffective treatment. Remember these were treatments that these doctors or their colleagues were asking patients to undertake at that time.
Subsequent research findings have improved little. Morgan’s paper of 2004 showed that chemotherapy only contributed about 1.5% to the five-year survival rate for lung cancer and just over 2% to the overall five-year survival rates of all cancers. Given that chemotherapy works well in a couple of cancers (testis, Hodgkins disease) slightly in a few cancers, the very low average of 2% reflects the fact that chemotherapy doesn’t work in others (prostate, uterus, bladder, kidney, soft tissue sarcoma, melanoma).
So why are people being offered chemotherapy when there is so little effect?
I put this down to a belief as strong as religious belief is to a bigot. I say this because of conversations with a whole range of people from those in the street, to friends, to doctors I work with and to people I know with cancer. There is a belief that a severe disease like cancer needs a strong drug to deal with it. Without it they will die. Time and again on television we see people who have survived cancer put down their survival to the magical drugs they received under the wonderful care of the doctors and nurses at their chosen hospital.
“It’s chemo or death,” said a friend. She was going for chemo and suffered horrendously for over six months before turning down more treatment.
Sadly doctors also have this belief, at least in front of their patients. However the scientific paper that showed that chemotherapy trials would be turned down on the basis of toxicity and that they did not work suggested that their private views might be different.
So why is chemotherapy offered so frequently when it has little effect?
One response is that chemotherapy is not given to improve longevity in most cases but to improve the quality of life for the time they have left. If this was true it would be worth it. However I know of NO patient whose quality of life was improved as a result of chemotherapy. Every person has talked only of the horrors and the problems they have been left with.
So why is this happening?
I put it down to the matter that doctors do what they believe their colleagues require of them according to the fads, fashions, financial and social incentives of each decade. Doctors have been struck off their local medical councils for refusing to give the chemotherapy that the power brokers all agree is the necessary required treatment. Change is slow and is mostly driven from outside. We need to ask doctors, ethics committees and politicians the difficult questions. If the Morgan and Mackillop papers are accurate, then why are they prescribing chemotherapy when it has such little effect?
Frankly I would turn to natural cancer therapies given what I have read in my research explorations. They might not be proven by randomized controlled trials to the satisfaction of the oncologists, but they don’t do the damage of the current fad, fashion and incentives. And if the large number of recoveries are not due to the medical treatment it must be because the body’s immune system kicked in and improved its functioning, so it makes sense to work with nature and do anything that we can to improve the immune system.
Mackillop WJ, Ward GK, O’Sullivan B.. The use of expert surrogates to evaluate clinical trials in non-small cell lung cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1986; 54:661-667. Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clinical Oncology 2004;16:549-560.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More Natural Cancer Therapies Articles
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies: Comparing Like With Like
The media often deals harshly with a person who has cancer who turns down medical treatment, turns to natural cancer therapies and subsequently dies. The success of a natural cancer treatment is measured on whether the person who is ill survives a natural lifespan. But this is not the case for medical treatments. Medical treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy often use much “softer” evidence of success.
When comparing results it is important to make sure that like is compared with like.
Success in radiotherapy and chemotherapy is often measured, not in terms of improved longevity but in terms of the regression of the tumor. There is an assumption that if the tumor reduces in size that the patient must do better in the longer term. This idea seems to be common sense, but it has not been proven to be the case.
It is clear that those who respond to chemotherapy do better than those who do not. But there is no research which shows that a reduction of tumor size is linked to improved longevity when compared to those who are not treated. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments cannot be said to be effective if this case is not made.
Would the patient (and his family) feel that regression of the tumor was a “successful outcome” if he still died in the same time frame as if he was not treated, and if he suffered terribly from side effects of the treatments during the process?
A second measurement is the number of people who survive to five years. A doctor who gets more patients to the five year mark than his colleagues might feel a personal triumph but the family whose mother dies at five years and three days will feel just as devastated as if the mother dies three days prior to the five years. In the first case the patient is designated as having a successful outcome and in the second as a less successful one. But for the family it is the same.
A third definition the medical profession use is the length of apparent tumor-free time until metastases appear. They call this disease free time, but if the disease commonly returns it seems disingenuous to pretend that the treatment made the patient disease-free. However the point as issue here is whether tumor-free time is a success if the patient then goes on to die in the same time frame as they would if they had not been treated?
Many medical professionals get very anxious and often very annoyed if you ask for evidence that the recommended treatment works. They may well spray around wonderful sounding percentages to “prove” that their recommendations will give a better chance.
However there have also been many a time when the doctor (reluctantly) hands over the research only to find that the patient or a member of their family dissects the research to find that the wonderful percentage improvements relate not to longevity but to tumor regression or to increased tumor-free time.
So if your doctor is making percentage claims of success for a particular treatment ask what this means in terms of additional years of survival. If he will not tell you or cannot tell you, then the probability is that the research does not show such an increase. If he does claim years of increased longevity then ask him for a copy of the research that says this. After all he is asking you to undertake treatment with potentially horrendous side effects (not to mention the cost to the family).
If the increased longevity is measured in only a few months then only you will know if the six to twelve months of treatments and side effects is worth two to four months of extra life, remembering of course that you might be one of the group of people who do not get that extra time.
If longevity with a high quality of life is your aim then think carefully as to how much the offered medical treatment may increase your longevity alongside the high cost of treatment side effects. It is a perfectly valid choice to decide against medical treatment for the time being and to choose to work with natural cancer therapies instead.
Remember that while natural cancer therapies have not been proven to work to the satisfaction of the medical profession neither have their own treatments (except in a few cases) been shown to be effective in treating cancer. This means that those tens of thousands of cases who recover may well have recovered anyway. Self healing is a natural process, built into our bodies.
Therefore any natural cancer therapies which support an improved immune system and a happier, more satisfying quality of life must be worthy of consideration.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Dr Chris Kaufmann & Timothy Clark… Sharing Information about their quest and at this Stop the Zyto Annual Training Conference 2010
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
See Part 1 here: www.youtube.com Part 2 of Dr Sean Holt’s discussion of complementary therapies at Café Scientifique, hosted by the Auckland Museum Institute, Friends of the Auckland Museum on July 28, 2010 Complementary Therapies for People with Cancer: Pearls in a Sea of Nonsense People diagnosed with cancer want to do everything they can to beat the disease and almost everyone will consider or try complementary therapies. Some of these therapies have been proven to work in good clinical trials, but the majority have not been tested, do not work or can be harmful. How does a person in this situation know what works and what does not? Without scientific training and the time to undertake the research it is impossible for almost everyone. There are some pearls of knowledge but they are hidden in a sea of nonsense. Dr Shaun Holt will tell you how this topic applies to people with cancer in New Zealand, what works, what doesn’t….and how to tell the difference. He is the director and founder of both Clinicanz, New Zealand’s only clinical trials Site Management Organization and The Vitamin Lab, who supply vitamins and supplements based on good scientific research. His 2008 book Natural Remedies That Really Work was a bestseller, he has a popular blog on evidence-based natural health, is the editor of the Natural Health Research Review and is on the international editorial board of the medical journal Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies. More about these events …
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Meet the WA winners and finalists
SOME are well known, others work anonymously in our community. But each of the finalists in the West Australian of the Year awards, announced Saturday night, have helped make our state a better place.
Read more on Perth Now
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by
Natural Cancer Therapies and Mainstream Medicine
Medicine thrives on the concept of evidence based medicine. All our training of medical students encourages them to expect to practice using the best evidence available. And there will be few people out there who would argue that we would want to have a good reason to use expensive treatments – we want to know they will work.
So often in the media there are comments from the medical profession about the gullibility of people using natural cancer therapies, or any natural therapies for any serious condition as they haven’t been proven to work to the same standards as the pharmaceutical drugs and other medical treatments.
However at this point we need to be very careful. In 1991 an article in the British Medical Journal stated that only about 15% of the treatments in use were proven to the standards that they expect of natural cancer therapies and other holistic and alternative treatments. And there is evidence to suggest we have not improved the percentages since then.
As a case in point surgery as a treatment for cancer has not been proven to lengthen the life of patients. Organizations such as the various countries’ cancer societies claim that life expectancy is improving where surgery is the main form of treatment, but there is just no evidence in the medical literature to support that claim.
The reason this is the case is that surgery has been the first mode of treatment for decades. It was “believed” to work. And because it was believed to work it was considered unethical to do a randomized controlled trial where half of the patients wouldn’t be treated. It would also have been difficult for the doctors to admit that they had been using an unproven method for the last century or so.
So where does that leave us? For a start we need to admit that there are a small group of patients who do need surgery to remove a growth that is pressing on vital organs and preventing ordinary functions. These people are likely to gain improved comfort and their lives may be extended for a short period of time. But that is as far as we can say with certainty.
Scientists have undertaken other modeling of the cancer figures to endeavor to find out if they could deduce whether surgery improves longevity and despite using several methods they were not able to show that surgery has a positive impact.
So how can the various cancer societies around the world say that surgery is useful? They use figures looking at the improvement in the percentage survival rates across the decades. Two explanations have been used by researchers as to why these figures show an improvement: one relating to changes in the criteria for diagnoses over the time frame being considered and the other to do with the more aggressive treatments being used. The scientific paper by Benjamin, referenced below, suggests that these survival figures can be explained in other ways and are therefore unreliable as a measure of the success of surgery as a treatment for cancer.
Beliefs on causality are very emotionally held, even by the medical profession. Both medical professionals and the public usually assume that medical treatment is based on good scientific evidence when this is just not the case. Medicine has always been based on collegial agreement as to what constitutes best care under the circumstances and this has changed according to fads, fashions and financial and social incentives. Scientific findings which are contrary to these get short shrift until such time as the fads, fashions and incentives change.
Those with cancer may still choose to use both surgery and, or, chemotherapy but they need to know that any healing that occurs is more likely to be due to your own body’s ability to self heal than to the treatment that your doctor recommends. As the scientific literature shows that chemotherapy has less than a 2% contribution to the 5 year survival rates and as there is no evidence surgery prolongs life we can be reassured that the very large numbers of recoveries are due to the patients’ own improved immune function.
As a result patients are well advised to seek out natural cancer therapies which support them psychologically, socially, spiritually and physically. I suggest that you do not look for that one magic herb, pill or potion to replace the doctor’s surgery and chemo. If you are going to go natural remember that natural healing covers ALL aspects of self care. Think of the cancer as being a systemic problem and that you need to improve every system of your body so that you become healthier overall.
Benjamin DJ. The efficacy of surgical treatment of cancer. Medical Hyotheses, 1993;40:129-138. Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clinical Oncology 2004;16:549-560. Smith R. Where is the wisdom…? The poverty of medical evidence. British Medical Journal 1991;303:798-799.
Dr Harriet Denz-Penhey is an internationally recognized health researcher who has done groundbreaking research into patient self care in serious illness. The web site http://www.cancerremedies.org discusses aspects of natural cancer treatment and remedies for good general health.
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More Natural Cancer Therapies Articles
Filed under Natural Cancer Therapies by