A Rational Approach to Cancer Treatment - and why Big Pharma isn't interested by David Bolton - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

"The macabre, ritualized Dance of Death"

 

Now that is a rather scary chapter title, is it not? Yet it is a good description of how I perceive the behavior of patients and their family members when a diagnosis of cancer is given.

If human beings were more rational than emotional, how would a family react if one of theirs came down with cancer? (We’ll call him “Uncle Clive”.)

I think they would begin by carefully analyzing the situation of their loved one: How has Uncle Clive been living? Does he have any habits that might have weakened his immune system? For example. Does he smoke, drink too much alcohol, or take a lot of drugs?

How about his diet? Is it healthy, or might it contain far too much sugar, red meat, “junk food”, etc.? Does he eat enough vegetables? 

Also: does he get enough physical exercise? Does he have a regular exercise routine?

What about his emotional state? Does he have a happy, fulfilling life? Could he be suffering from depression, perhaps without even being totally aware of it?

And not to forget: are there external factors that might have (also) contributed to cancer? For example: does Clive live near a paper mill? (It has been shown that populations that live near paper mills tend to have higher cancer rates). Has he been exposed to large doses of radiation? 

On the (extremely important!) emotional level: Has he lost a love one in the past few years, which might have led to his losing interest in life itself?

After discussing such issues with Uncle Clive himself, and carefully analyzing all of these factors, the family would put all the answers into writing, in order to better judge which of these many factors might most probably have led to a significant weakening of Clive’s immune system, thus contributing to the appearance of cancer.

During their analysis, they would almost certainly come up with several factors in Clive’s life that in all likelihood have weakened his immune system to the point where cancer occurred. They would then take an eminently logical step, one that should be plain to anyone but the most hopeless fool:

They would, together with Clive, design a new life-style for him: one that contains…

1) Only the healthiest of diets, as recommended by alternative physicians: a highalkaline, vegetarian diet, one that includes no sugar, and the regular intake of pure water, etc. In order to raise his pH level, Clive would drink several glasses of baking soda water daily.

2) A regular exercise program. If Clive is completely out of shape, such a program would have to begin modestly, perhaps only with daily walks (that would then be gradually increased in distance).

3) The use of positive suggestion would also be included. Clive would go to an expert in this area (for example, an alternative physician specializing in hypnosis/self-hypnosis), who would formulate suggestions that Clive would give himself throughout the day, and perhaps in sessions of self-hypnosis as well. This would be a means of utilizing the power of belief (which I deal with in the chapter “Do you really want to live?).

In that “rationally thinking” world, all of the family members would realize that the cancer now afflicting Clive is a result of factors in his life: not only ones related to life-style, but also emotional, and possibly genetic. In any case, he is here now (i.e., in a state of illness) because of factors related to his past. Therefore, that family would know that it is of urgent importance to change anything and everything in his life that could possibly have contributed to his getting cancer.

But now, there enters another factor, and one that is even more delicate: Clive’s relationships. Let’s suppose that the family members, all being honest and clearthinking (for this theoretical family inhabits a world where reason is valued a lot more than in our own), consider the possibility that Clive is not really happy in his marriage. True, he and Diane have been married for some 25 years, and have, like everybody, had their ups and downs. But Clive, when asked, tells the not-so-pleasant truth: “The fact is, that though I do still love Diane, I am not happy with her. It’s as if our relationship were empty somehow. She’s always making me feel guilty for something or another, and rarely ever says anything really nice to me.”  Diane, who is sitting there with the others, does not seem very happy with his honesty, but being a creature of reason, she listens carefully, for after all: Isn’t Clive’s health more important than her ego? (Though admittedly, she can only have such a generous mindset because she is living in the “World of Reason”.) She then speaks up: “Yes, Clive, I hear what you are saying. And you know, maybe this illness of yours will help me to think more positively about our relationship, and to make it a point to say nice things more often. Yet I would totally understand if you preferred a temporary separation, so that you can “spread your wings” a bit. Who knows? Maybe unhappiness in our relationship was one of the contributors to this cancer?”

Of course, if in this “World of Reason” the typical cancer treatments of our world were present (which I highly doubt!), then the family would also discuss them: chemo- and radiation therapy, for example. They would return to the physician that diagnosed the cancer, and request precise and complete data as to the proven effectiveness of those methods. In fact, they would insist that the physician find those statistics for them. If they then saw that (for example) chemotherapy is indeed highly ineffective in treating the type of cancer involved, they would immediately reject such a “therapy”. If, on the other hand, Clive’s cancer were one of those which can just perhaps be successfully treated with chemo (for instance, cancer of the testes, for which chemotherapy contributes about 40% to five-year survival rates), he and the family, after careful analysis and rational thought, would decide what to do. Clive speaks up:

“The doctor said I could wait a month or two before starting chemo, after which time he will test me again to see if things are improving, or getting worse. So this is what I will do: During the next two months, I will do everything possible to strengthen my immune system. Starting right now, I will change my diet; begin a regular exercise program; make use of the power of positive suggestion; and in addition, I will avoid stress, arguments, and any sort of conflicts. Since Diane and I have been arguing a lot recently, either one of two paths must be taken: either you, Diane, will resolve to not provoke any conflicts, and to avoid arguing; or else, I will take a little vacation by myself. Having some alone time may help me see more clearly what I may have been doing wrong in a number of areas of my life. You wouldn’t mind, would you, Diane?”

“Why dear, that could be a wonderful idea! After all, the important thing is that you recover completely, so anything that might lead to a recovery is just fine with me!”

Clive decides to put off the decision as to whether to recover at home, or somewhere else, till the next day. But that very day, he begins his new diet, which had previously been thoroughly researched by other family members, since naturally all of them wanted to do everything possible to help. They have also come up with an exercise program for him, tailored to his present physical condition: that very same evening, Clive takes a three-mile walk (his first long walk in years), and though tiring, he feels the better for it, not only because his body has gotten some exercise, but because he now feels that he is taking concrete steps towards health. (More about the importance of this in the chapter entitled   “ If faced with cancer, what would I myself do?”)

That is the way things would play out in our hypothetical “World of Reason”. Unfortunately, relatively few people would act this way in our world. Instead, the situation plays out in an ominous fashion – the macabre “Dance of Death” referred to earlier. It goes something like this…

Clive is diagnosed with cancer. Naturally, he is shocked and dismayed; he at first thinks it must be some mistake. His wife, Diane, is stunned as well, but she tries to cheer him up: “Well, not everybody who gets cancer dies from it. Just take it easy, and try to be positive. The doctors know what they are doing. After all, they’re experts. So if Doctor Smith recommends chemo, then I’d say that’s the way to go.”

In fact, she doesn’t really know the statistics for that type of cancer, but she does want him to feel better. Yet instead of simply trying to make Clive feel better, would it not be preferable to first gather all the facts? For instance: what is the 5-year survival rate for this specific type of cancer? And what would (for example) chemotherapy contribute to this survival rate, based on statistics such as those present in the scientific study presented earlier in this book? 

Diane, despite her attempts to cheer Clive up, is in fact distraught, for she is thinking: “Oh my God, a year from now, Clive might well be dead!” But of course she doesn’t say this.

 Clive, still in a state of shock from the diagnosis, doesn’t seem so optimistic…

“Well, I guess I could try chemo, though I know four people who had cancer and went the chemo route, and three of them died within a couple of years. So let’s face it: maybe my time has come.”  Diane tries to brush this off: “Oh, what are you talking about? Maybe they found the cancer in time. A lot of people survive cancer, you know. Sometimes it just goes away by itself. And with chemo, there’s a better chance that that will happen, right?”

Once again, Diane is speaking without having collected all the relevant data. For in fact, for some types of cancer, chemo has been shown to contribute nothing whatsoever to a cure; indeed, one may assume that quite the contrary: some people’s lives are even shortened precisely because of chemotherapy. But after all, in this “macabre dance of death”, all actions/reactions are “choreographed” in such a way that everyone concerned tries to put on a cheery face, and act like maybe it’s “no big deal”. Except, perhaps, the patient himself…

“Well”, Clive continues, “Maybe you’re right. But it could be that I’m a goner. So you know what I want to do? Enjoy life a little more. Hey, why don’t you bake a chocolate cake? No sense in depriving myself of the little pleasures of life while I’m still alive!”

Wrong, Clive! Just the opposite: instead of continuing with your old habits, you should view cancer as a sort of “wake-up call”, and therefore, you should do everything you can to improve your life-style to the maximum, in order to increase your chances of recovering your health.

Yet once again, this isn’t how the “macabre dance of death” would have it. Instead, it calls for everyone to try to go on living as before, pretending that this cancer diagnosis might not be so serious after all. At the same time, there is a strong tendency to place oneself in the “hands of the professionals”. Yet where is the guarantee that what “your doctor orders” is indeed what is best for you?

Clive and Diana, by blindly following their doctor’s recommendations, are possibly becoming victims of the “Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry”, as have so many others. For if they opt for chemo without knowing the true statistics of its effectiveness for Clive’s type of cancer, they could be subjecting Clive to a  “treatment” that will poison his system further, weakening his immune system even more, and lead to his premature death. Yes, this does happen.

However, I well understand their situation: fear causes them to react as if in a stupor, blindly following anyone who suggests that something or another might help. Of course, instead of becoming passive and simply obeying the doctor, they should actively research on their own. First, they should determine how much chemo might help (should Clive have one of the 22 types of cancer dealt with in the study so often mentioned in this book, that info can be found there). Also, they should definitely look into alternative treatments, beginning with ones that are virtually free, and that are based on these essential factors:

1) Diet: They should immediately adopt an optimal diet, as recommended by many alternative physicians.

2) Exercise: this not only helps to strengthen the immune system, but lifts one’s spirits, psychologically speaking.

3) Giving up all negative habits that weaken the immune system: smoking, drinking, drugs, soft drinks, any food and drinks containing processed sugar… you get the idea.

4) The use of positive suggestion, and/or self-hypnosis.

5) Avoidance of stress, emotional conflicts with others, overwork, etc.

6) Careful thought about whether one actually wants to go on living: Do you see a meaning in your life? Do you look forward to each new day? What would you like to do, or achieve, before you die? Having clear reasons to go on living can contribute immeasurably to extending one’s life.

In the case of Clive, neither he nor his family members follow this path. Instead, he figures “What the hell! I might as well enjoy the pleasures of life – give me another cigarette... and let’s go to that new steak house tonight!”  The family members do what they can to “cheer him up”, though practically all of them are thinking that before long, they will be attending his funeral.

Would it not be infinitely better to not engage in this “macabre dance of death”, but rather, take control of the situation, by gathering ALL the facts available, and then immediately creating a plan for strengthening Clive’s immune system as quickly and effectively as possible?

I hear some of my readers now…

“But David, how can you say that Clive should change his life-style so drastically, when you can’t prove that it will cure him?”

To that, I say the following…

1) How can doctors recommend chemo (and other invasive therapies) when they cannot “prove that they work.” Quite the contrary: Statistics show that (in the case of chemo, for one) it does not work for many types of cancer, and due to its extremely negative side effects, it obviously does more harm than good. On the other hand, greatly improving one’s diet, adopting exercise, giving up bad habits, etc., are all measures that do not have any negative side effects, and in addition, are all but free. Logic thus dictates that (whether or not one resorts to chemo) these measures should be taken immediately when the diagnosis is received. For if a measure cannot do any harm, is totally free, and could possibly save your life, why in the world would you not want to adopt it?!

2) Yes, I know that making such life-style changes is not easy. Yet here, it is literally a matter of life or death. If the prospect of dying does not motivate you to take concrete measures to do everything you can to recover, then could it be that you do not, deep down inside, want to recover? This is why I repeatedly stress the importance of doing a personal psychological evaluation, by asking yourself questions about your life at present, your reasons for living, your goals, etc. By coming up with honest answers to such questions, you may well discover that your beliefs about life and your habitual thought patterns have contributed to weakening your desire to live. Once recognized, these negative patterns of mind can gradually be modified, which could not only contribute to a recovery, but could also give you a more fulfilling life in the future!

In summary: If you, or a loved one, comes down with cancer, do not engage in the rigidly choreographed “macabre dance of death”, blindly following doctors’ recommendations, and becoming a passive victim of your “fate”. Instead, research to find out all the facts to the most important questions; Act now to improve your life-style in every way you possibly can, and know that there are people who have done just this, and who have completely recovered from cancer. (You can read more “survivor stories” at the site of Chris Wark).

Yet when you begin doing your on-line research, there are pitfalls that need to be avoided: namely, “scientific” presentations of certain “facts” that promote conclusions that are, in reality, almost without doubt totally erroneous. In the following chapter, I shall give an example of just such a case.