CANCER IS NOT A PATHOLOGY
Numerous individuals have “fought” cancer, engaging in a battle with their bodies, only to experience poor outcomes in most cases. Is it possible that tumors and cysts are late stage protective responses?
Watch the full video or continue reading below.
FIGHTING CANCER
Similar to fevers and germs, we’ve learned that these are helpful and necessary. Calling cancer a disease is like calling fever a disease.
We can’t win the “war” on cancer. Fighting cancer is like fighting against colds / fevers / inflammation. These are how the body self-heals.
What if cysts, tumors, and rapidly growing cells represent an intelligent response to a highly poisoned, stressed, burdened, and neglected body when all other mechanisms have been exhausted.
It’s imperative to take care and caution when the body presents in these later phases if one wants to preserve life. You must act quickly with wisdom and understanding of what the body is actually doing. When you act out of fear and misunderstanding of the body itself, the results are most often disastrous.
THE HISTORY OF CANCER
It’s been 53 years since this “War on Cancer” was declared by the government. The nation was promised a “cure” in 5 years with the billions that went into new cancer research.
However, it was never Nixon’s War on Cancer. Instead it was other people of influence such as a prominent and charming Socialite Mary Lasker who moved beyond rich socialite to pioneer national policy-making.
Mary, together with policymakers and investment bankers, developed the framework of the National Cancer Act, which the President endorsed by the end of that year. (1)
Does it remind you a little of what we have today? We have social media influencers and Hollywood types pushing forward medical policy and impacting public acceptance.
Interestingly using these influencers have been shown to be more productive for public acceptance than if a politician or marketing figure promotes these things. (2)
IS CANCER GENETIC?
In 2024, over 611,000 deaths from cancer are projected for the US. That’s more than 1,600 deaths attributed to cancer each day.
In the coming year, we’re expecting to hit a bleak milestone—the first time new cases of cancer in the US are expected to cross the 2-million mark. (3)
For decades most of this cancer research has been focused on the genetic model of cancer., the idea that your genes dictate if you get this deadly disease.
In 1976 a couple doctors claimed to find that normal genes can mutate into genes that can cause cancer.
For their supposedly groundbreaking contribution to the genetic origins of cancer, they went on to win the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1989. (4)
They insisted that if they could find the genetic mutation responsible they could cure cancer.
It is still being claimed that cancer is a “genetic disease.” (5)
As time went on researchers found that there were genetically different cells in the same individual tumor and many genetic differences in people with the same cancers. This has lead to major contradictions and inconsistencies.
The genetic model hasn’t been as successful as once thought, even by their own reports and data. Yet this is the predominant framework that almost all cancer research and treatment is built on.
A paper authored by 2 medical doctors and professors from Tufts University School of Medicine highlights our current predicament:
“For decades, the management of clinical cancers has been based on the premises of the [genetic model] that, in short, meant to kill the allegedly immortalized, mutated “cancer cells.” This approach ignores evidence that the carcinogenic process is reversible, as repeatedly proven both experimentally and clinically. Regardless of these damning conclusions, the [genetic model] and its variants have maintained their hegemony in academic circles, in the hospital ward, in BigPharma, in the specialized and lay media at large, and, equally important, in study sections of funding agencies, in which short- and long-term future trends in cancer research are decided.” (6)
“For the sake of the current and future credibility in the fields of biology at large and cancer in particular, a rigorous, critical assessment of the odd situation biologists and cancer researchers are facing is in order. Our long-term analysis of the theoretical bases under which cancer research has been and is conducted, and the empirical evidence collected after more than a century of intensive research, indicates that the reductionist [genetic model] should be abandoned and replaced by an organicist theory” (7)
DOES CHEMO WORK?
The decision in favor of or against chemotherapy should be influenced only by the following questions.
First, does the treatment prolong survival significantly?
Second, does it contribute to the patient’s quality of life?
When an oncologist says that a particular cancer has been shown to “respond” to a drug, what that usually means is that the drug has shown to shrink tumors.
However, it’s well known in the literature that tumor shrinkage does not equal longer survival. In fact, it can even often mean shorter survival time if the treatment is too toxic.
Another whirlwind study that came out was an independent review of randomized trials evaluating chemo and the 5 year survival rate in Americans & Australians for 22 major malignancies. This was for all stages of cancer.
They found:
“The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5 year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in AUS and 2.1% in US.” (8)
There are some critics to this paper. The writers at the Science Based Medicine website claim that this “Australian study was custom-designed to minimize the apparent utility of chemotherapy..” (9)
In addition another critic, Associate Professor Boyer, responded that chemotherapy is more effective than the study demonstrated. He said it’s more like 5% or 6% not the 2% claimed in the study. (10)
If the best defense of chemotherapy is that it’s helpful for 5 or so percent of cancer patients rather than 2 percent shown in the original study we still may be pretty far off target.
Or the other critique is that chemo does “work” in a few cancers just not the ones examined in the study I just referenced. The cancers that chemo apparently works for is just around 10% of all cancer diagnoses.
Surely it is high time to re-think its widespread use. Also that’s not to say anything about what it does to a person’s quality of life.
What’s more is that there is very very little research being done on other modes of recovery. It’s just not done and then they claim there’s no “evidence” to support other therapies.
We can’t make the claim that if other therapies worked, then we’d already have the evidence of them working when those studies just aren’t being done.
“EVIDENCE BASED” STUDIES
In cancer research all patients receive standard treatment first and foremost. Very few people are being studied without any conventional treatment. They claim they can’t ethically randomize patients to a no treatment arm, when established treatments exist.
How can we ever know if chemotherapy is truly superior than doing no conventional treatment at all or a placebo only? We can’t.
Believe it or not, it’s hard to find papers that show the “natural course” of various cancers, meaning what happens to patients who say they have breast cancer and do nothing. One paper does this for breast cancer. It’s a 1960s study in the BMJ.
They looked at the course of breast cancer when left completely alone. Granted these are very old reports, the only ones we could find because in today’s studies almost everyone gets treated with surgery/chemo/radiation. as it’s considered unethical to not do so.
I’m not suggesting don’t do anything if you have tumors growing. When the body speaks you should listen, but we want to understand this process we call cancer.
Look at this study there is a section in their paper called “Long Survivors.”
“The most striking fact that emerges from a study on untreated breast cancer is the number of patients who survive for 5 or 10 or more years with no specific treatment. All published series on this subject contain instances of prolonged survival and this must be taken into account…” (11) (12)
PHARMA FUNDED
Take a look at what the Journal of American Medical Association has to say:
“Contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure surrogate end points [not survival] and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry.” (13)
In other words, almost all studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies and they are looking at end points that don’t necessarily lead to better survival. This will make the drug look more effective than it is.
Truthfully our current system, is built on some fundamental misunderstandings:
- You are a victim to your genetics or chance.
- The body cannot self heal.
- You can’t play much of a role in that self healing process.
THE “ALTERNATIVE” MODEL
In the “alternative” health space you may have heard things like…
“Glucose feeds cancer.”
“Starve cancer.”
“Cancer only invades tissue of injury and inflammation.”
In more holistic training we are taught that cancer is “a failure” of the body’s innate defenses and we need to kill it or destroy it – naturally.
This idea that the genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. The language is still pointing us in the wrong direction.
In a paper titled “Should We Continue to Fight the Enemy Within” they outline that our war filled language isn’t helping:
“Like warfare, the primary focus in cancer therapy has been, and still is, on how to more efficiently kill as many undesired cells as possible… Despite all the very expensive and toxic radical “weapons”, the enemies are not totally destroyed. This causes “collateral damage” with unnecessary toxicities in normal cells and reduces the patient’s the quality of life” (14)
KEY POINTS & CONCLUSION
- In 2024, over 611,000 deaths from cancer are projected for the US.
- The genetic model hasn’t been as successful as once thought. Yet this is the predominant framework that almost all cancer research and treatment is built on.
- Researchers are urging to change this model and understand that the carcinogenic process is reversible as repeatedly proven both experimentally and clinically.
- An independent review of randomized trials evaluating chemo and the 5 year survival rate in Americans & Australians for 22 major malignancies found overall contribution chemotherapy to 5 year survival was around 2%.
- Current oncology RCTs now mostly measure surrogate end points (not overall survival) making the drugs look more effective than they are.
- Almost all RCTs in cancer are exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry as pointed out in the Journal of American Medical Association.
- Cysts, tumors, and rapidly growing cells represent an intelligent response to a highly poisoned, stressed, burdened, and neglected body when all other mechanisms have been exhausted.
- Cancer is the body’s natural response to overwhelming toxicity and suppressed and stagnated elimination from the cell to the tissue to the whole body.
- Stay tuned for the next video where we discuss how this can be approached.
