The case for alternatives in cancer treatment

A few months ago I heard on the news about a loving mother whose young son, Neon, had been diagnosed with a brain tumour. He had surgery, which was successful, and Neon was declared cancer-free. However, the oncologists then insisted that Neon be subjected to not just radiation treatment but also chemotherapy, to prevent recurrence. Realising the potentially horrific side effects associated with chemotherapy and radiation, and the fact that they might not prolong Neon’s life, Sally Roberts fought to prevent the medical system from taking over, since Neon, as a child, could not refuse the treatment for himself. Sally valiantly fought for the right to choose what she felt would be best for her child, but a court order prevented her intervention and a judge deemed that Sally must subject her son to what amounted to outdated, experimental treatment. You can read an interview with Sally here:

One of the escalating concerns in regard to the incidence of cancer these days is not just the sheer numbers of people affected by the disease (3% incidence in 1900, vs. anticipated 65% incidence by 2030), but the fact that it is affecting ever younger members of the population. Cancer used to be a disease only ever found in the elderly. How different that situation is today.

There are many, many factors that are judged to be causative in the cancer process; ranging from our emotional state to genetics to environmental pollution. Together with eminent geneticists, Brian Clement is indicating that genetics plays next to no role in the development of cancer, and very few other disease processes, despite what we are told about “cancer genes”. Our environment, and our nutritional status, ultimately determines which genes are expressed and which are permanently suppressed.  Our immune systems are the best cancer-fighting army on earth. Bombarded with air pollution, water pollution and increasingly commonly, food pollution, our immune systems have a 24/7 intense job just to keep us on track.

There is a huge amount of regulation governing how we are “cared” for in the conventional treatment of cancer and many other diseases. There is immense pressure on people to go down the conventional route, which may involve numerous treatments that we know are devastating to the immune system – the one system that is our main hope for recovery. Regulation, according to some authors, is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its own benefit, rather than that of the patients. This perpetuates the use of their one single option that is available – i.e. radiotherapy, surgery, chemotherapy. The success of cancer treatment is judged on a 5 year survival time. This means that if you die as soon as you go into year 6, your treatment is still deemed to have been successful. Given that 93% of people who undergo conventional treatment for cancer have the disease recur within 5 years, why is it that we are still relying on this medical model to “cure” a condition which is largely environmental and nutritional? For my recommendations on how we can approach nutritional treatment, please click here.

2500 new environmental chemicals are created annually in an industry which is largely unregulated. In the case of the escalating incidence of childhood cancers, it is noteworthy that 8 out of 10 baby products contain flame-retardant chemicals that cause cancer and brain damage. A study conducted at Duke University indicated that child car seats, high chairs and push chairs contain carcinogenic and mind-altering chemicals. Industrial and agricultural chemicals are the leading cause of many cancers. DNA is a fragile molecule which is easily changed, and cancer results from such changes in DNA. Ionising radiation from Xrays, CT scans, mobile phones and radiotherapy (itself a type of cancer treatment) is a further source of DNA injury. Before cancer can be identified with routine diagnostic tests, 5 billion abnormal cells have to be present. Genetic damage occurs in our somatic body cells rather than in the germ cell. According to Brian Clement, what is common to all cancers is a failure of stem cells to differentiate; cancer does not start in mature cells, and should be viewed as a micro-evolutionary process that is very basic.

Regarding the spectacularly high failure rate of conventional treatment for cancer, it is particularly sad that we have to use science to disprove science. Indeed, in some types of cancer, the mortality rate is higher if you intervene with medical treatment than if you leave it alone and do nothing. The success rate of conventionally treated stage 4 melanoma and stage 4 breast cancer is zero – all patients die. At the Hippocrates Health Institute, the success rate for such tumours is very high, but this information is never given out to patients, since it is outside the industry’s areas of expertise, and government-approved guidelines. Fortunately for us as consenting adults, we have the option to play a full and committed part in our recovery process – after all, isn’t a healthy and disease-free life worth 100% of our commitment? The incredibly sad aspect of Sally and Neon’s story is that industry standards are being forced upon a child who is too young to make an educated decision about his treatment options, and his mother is being denied the right to do that for him.  How tragic that this is occurring in our so-called “civilised” society.

About Max Tuck

Hippocrates Health Educator. Long term living foods vegan. Athlete, lecturer, author of four books (with the 5th coming soon) and firm advocate of healthy living.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The case for alternatives in cancer treatment

  1. NotDownOrOut says:

    Where did the information that 93% will get cancer again in five years come from? I want to read that report! Thanks.

    • Max Tuck says:

      It came from major hospitals in which cancer patients are being treated conventionally. The information came via Brian Clement at the Hippocrates Health Institute. The statistics seem to be for the USA, but since they are using similar or identical protocols to the UK, it would be very similar here too. Cancer treatment success rates are judged on 5 year survival time, which is a pretty arbitrary time scale in my opinion. With several types of cancer, the survival time is longer if you do nothing (prostate cancer, lymphoma). Dr Thomas Lodi, from An Oasis of Healing in Arizona, gives the same information. He specialises in natural cancer treatment. Hope this helps! Max.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s