There are cancer patients who are aware of the dismal failure of the chemotherapy-based approach to cancer treatment, and are searching for non-toxic and effective alternatives. Other patients have undergone chemo treatments, and decided against repeating the experience. Again others find that their cancer became resistant to the drugs.

These patients are looking for an approach that is beyond oncology. Are there treatments that are able to eliminate cancer without harming the body?

Yes, 19 such treatments are described on this website. The problem is not that there are no solutions available. The question is, which treatment or treatment-combination should be chosen from so many protocols. These treatments are non-toxic and affordable, many of them are home treatments, and if one combination doesn't eliminate the problem, another one can be applied.

Your oncologist may tell you that integrative doctors are quacks and charlatans because they practice medicine that has not been proved in placebo-controlled double-blind clinical studies, and are not FDA approved procedures. You'll be told that they are also ineffective and potentially dangerous. Last, but not least, they will tell you that there's no scientific proof that a positive attitude gives you, the patient, an advantage in cancer treatment or improves your chance of being cured (quote from the Mayo clinic). These statements deserve a closer look.

"Positive attitude won't improve your chance of recovery..." Click here.
This statement is such an obvious nonsense, that no physician with extensive field experience with cancer patients will endorse it. There is a huge international literature available for those who wish to research the subject. The central theme and fundamental conclusion of all studies is this: Belief and a positive attitude must be sustained at all costs.

Here, we will only mention two interesting points. One is the well established fact that stress, emotional trauma and negative attitude can cause cancer. There is a whole field of research that focuses on this aspect of cancer, although the Mayo clinic may regard it as quackery. The other point is this: Remember the gold standard of allopathic clinical testing, the placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial? Well, the placebo effect is nothing else than the result of a belief, of a positive attitude concerning the treatment used in the trial. By declaring mental and emotional attitude irrelevant, the Mayo clinic also declares the placebo principle a myth. Good going, guys!

"Integrative doctors are quacks and charlatans." Integrative doctors are board certified and licenced MDs, oncologists and naturopathic physicians who decided to use legal medications and treatments that benefit their patients. Because their methods work extremely well, and because they threaten the revenues of allopathic doctors who rely heavily on expensive toxic drugs, they are labeled as quacks and charlatans.

If integrative MDs and naturopaths are called quacks, it seems justified to ask, what is the average oncologist?

When confronted with the diagnosis of cancer, probably the best question to ask a doctor is, ‘if you were me what would you do?’ This one is easy for me to answer because I (Dr. Ross Hauser) believe oncologists are good but I would most likely not let one treat me. They are good at giving chemotherapy. Oncologists in actuality are high-dose chemotherapy experts. They should be called chemotherapists, not oncologists. ‘Oncologist’ comes from the Greek word oncos, which means mass or tumor. By definition, an oncologist is supposed to be an expert in cancer, and by inference, cancer physiology. It is my contention that because oncologists do not try to reverse cancer physiology while treating someone they are not experts in cancer physiology and should not be called oncologists. The problem with chemotherapy is not that it does not work. It does work. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells. The problem is that it kills the patient’s immune system and eventually the patient. Since oncologists do not have a way to target the chemotherapy more toward the cancer cells and do not try to reverse cancer physiology, I would not let them treat me ... In one of the biggest reviews on the survival of chemotherapy-treated cancer patients, Ulrich Abel, PhD, of the Heidelberg Tumor Center in Germany found that chemotherapy alone can help only about 3% of the patients with epithelial cancer (such as breast, lung, colon, and prostate), which kills 80% of total cancer patients. That is why a traditional oncologist for the majority of cancers does not have in his or her armamentarium the tools to cure a cancer patient. A prominent scientist from the University of Wisconsin, Johan Bjorksten PhD, has shown that high-dose chemotherapy alone destroys the immune system beyond the point of return, which increases the risk for early death from infections and other cancers in these immuno deficient patients. Almost everyone involved in cancer therapeutics would also agree that high-dose chemotherapy substantially reduces a person’s quality of life by the mouth sores, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, poor appetite, and numerous other side effects it causes. So if it does not increase survival, and decreases one’s ability to enjoy life, then I am indeed justified in saying that I believe oncologists are good (at high-dose chemotherapy), but I would get a second opinion before I let one treat me. This conclusion is surely logical. People with cancer who fail the usual and customary chemotherapy cocktail need to realize that whatever treatment they then do should be considered experimental. Many times this fact wakes the patient out of his or her stupor that somehow modern allopathic medicine is scientific and natural medicine is quackery. Just because a treatment is given by people in white coats in a sterile white building does not mean it is effective or scientific. Most of what is done to cancer patients is essentially experimental ... Many of the methods and madness used by traditional oncologists (and paid by people’s insurance companies) that are touted as scientific have not been shown to extend a person’s life, or enhance the quality of life. We often get patients coming to the office who have been told by their oncologists that they have a 75% chance of success with high-dose chemotherapy, which the patient interprets as a 75% chance of being cured. What it really means is that the patient has a 75% chance of getting shrinkage and about a 5% chance of being cured. Most tumor can be shrank by high-dose chemotherapy, but few can be completely cleared. There is no arguing that traditional high-dose chemotherapy causes tumor shrinkage; it just destroys a lot of good stuff on the way, making cancer cure very difficult. This idea of response rates permeates oncology meeting and scientific studies. What a cancer patient is concerned with is survival and quality of life. Modern oncology seldom studies quality of life because there is no quality while undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. The cure rate of traditional chemotherapy for most cancers is almost zero. The following revelation by Dr. Hauser is as shocking as it is appaling: Oncologists are not known to be nutritional wizards. There is still a notion in oncology that food feeds cancer. We believe this stems from the fact that intravenous feedings given to cancer patients in the hospital have been shown to feed the cancer. Numerous human and animal studies have shown that intravenous feedings, formally known as parenteral nutrition, stimulate cancer growth. The nutritional support that is given in intravenous feedings is typically approximately 50% dextrose, sucrose, glucose, or some other simple sugar. Sometimes the blood sugars go so high in the patients given these feedings that they need insulin. Is it any wonder when cancer patients receive 50% dextrose straight into the blood with a little insulin added that their cancers grow? Thus the notion from oncologists that food feeds cancer. Food does not feed cancer; carbohydrates especially in form of sugars do.

We also know that our oncologist is a busy retailer, selling chemotherapy drugs with a healthy mark-up to his/her patients.

PHARMA/PHYSICIANS: Reimbursements Sway Oncologists' Drug Choices,
by Greg Pawelski
March 10, 2006

A joint Michigan/Harvard study confirms that medical oncologists choose cancer chemotherapy based on how much money the chemotherapy earns the medical oncologist.

Here are more links to articles and documents focusing on the "Cancer Concession" controversy (oncologists reselling drugs at a profit):

Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors -- The New York Times
Chemotherapy Recommendations: Profit Motive Clouds Objectivity
Oncologists Taking the Profits
Enormous financial incentives to order chemotherapy
The new system still has major flaws, in that it continues to provide incentives to administer chemotherapy ...
"They can make $20,000 with a course of chemo for pancreatic cancer even though it doesn't work"
Cancer Chemotherapy Concession
Cancer drug profits
THE MEDICARE CHEMOTHERAPY CONCESSION -- Government audits have found that profit margins for doctors of 80 to 90 percent are not uncommon in these transactions.
Video: Cancer drug profits

Integrative treatments "have not been proved in placebo-controlled double-blind clinical studies ... " Ask your doctor, how many chemotherapy protocols have been proved in placebo-controlled double-blind clinical studies. The answer is, not a single one. It cannot be done. It would necessitate infusing placebo into the veins of mortally ill people. Instead, they enrol patients in clinical trials, and if the tumors show shrinkage and the patients "tolerate" the treatment, it is declared "safe and effective". As far as the safety of the public is concerned, remember VIOXX, the painkiller? It most certainly underwent double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. The result:
"The FDA now reportedly estimates that the total number of US Vioxx deaths may be between 89,000 and 140,000. This data has not yet been officially published by the federal government, though top FDA experts have publicly acknowledged these Vioxx deaths estimates. Worldwide Vioxx deaths are estimated to be between 150,000 and 200,000, though these estimates have not been confirmed officially." http://www.adrugrecall.com/vioxx/death.html

According to the medical research community, chemotherapeutic treatments are experimental, seldom effective as a long range cure, and very, very dangerous. If your oncologist disagrees, ask for definitive data from peer reviewed medical journal publications, stating that a specific treatment protocol achieves a high cure rate. Most likely all he will be able to produce will be pharmaceutical advertisements. (Please note: A 75% shrinkage rate doesn't indicate any degree in the survival rate!)

Integrative treatments are not FDA approved. Concerning the scientific credibility of the FDA, please see Dr. Gary Null's video, Prescription for Disaster. Other videos: WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU and FDA Fraud and Deception by Dr. Mercola, M.D., and Money, Drugs, and the FDA
Articles:
Conventional medicine finally calls for dismantling of FDA's corrupt power structure
Need to Reform The FDA
The FDA

Integrative treatments are ineffective ... According to the AMA, any medical treatment that is not approved by the regulatory authorities, is ineffective. Staying alive by such measures puts a person, as far as the medical establishment is concerned, in a ghost-like status. Have you ever tried to talk to an oncologist about someone you knew who has been cured by non-toxic means? Have you noticed that the doctor's eyes glazed over and instead of looking at you, he/she looked right through you? That's the famous ghost effect. In other words, that patient who recovered doesn't exist officially. He is not a person, he is a spontaneous remission walking on two feet. Beware, just talking about him to your doctor can change you, too, into an unreal apparition.

Integrative treatments are potentially dangerous. Of course they are. So is aspirin, even water. Chemotherapy is not potentially dangerous, it is downright deadly. As Dr. Glenn A. Warner, M.D., head of the immunotherapy department of the Tumor Institute at Cook County Hospital in Chicago said, "We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison." Medications used in the treatments listed on this website are completely non-toxic at the level of therapeutic doses, and many of them have no toxicity at any level.

Most likely you have already talked to your MD and oncologist about the available toxic treatments. Why not call a few holistic doctors, and talk with them about non-toxic ones?

© Gabe Bartha 2007. All rights reserved