Why do some people choose alternative medicine for their cancer treatment?

To set the scene of my article, I holistically cured myself of an aggressive breast cancer and am still going strong and clear over 10 years down the track. I wrote about this several months back on this platform. I did get a few responses and all were negative, negative in a way that surprised me.

I wrote about environmental toxicity as the major driver of the explosion of cancer in our modern world, and made suggestions for broadscale public health screening for these toxins in order to create a databank from which better medical treatments could be developed. People appeared frightened and weirdly angry that there could be other methods than mainstream medicine used to maintain good health. I find this an important topic to explore.

I'm back writing now on the impetus of the story of Elle Macpherson's similar medical choices for her cancer care, which have been very aggressively slammed by the medical profession as seen in all of the Australian major media outlets. That well-used, and intentionally debate-silencing word, has been used yet again, "quackery", and always accompanied by the adjective of "dangerous!".

When I responded in support of Elle stating my similar decision in the comment section on the online Australian newspaper, the moderators totally censored me…Wow…what does that even mean? There currently is a very strong censoring trend being used to create inordinate pressure to NOT investigate the possibility that there are other methods of maintaining good health rather than purely the conventional medical model.

I would also like to share that shortly after I had my incredible success with clearing my own cancer status, I chose to share what I had discovered to be effective cancer destroying protocols with the world. That is the right thing to do after all, isn't it? I called all the large, well known cancer foundations, institutes and research centres in Australia. I was told by the cancer council that they get lots of calls like mine where people describe these seemingly miraculous recoveries by using alternative medicine.

After multiple phone calls and emails, I very surprisingly was only contacted by one of the cancer research groups. I told my story, was invited to one of their presentations on breast cancer research at the RBWH, but my personal input went nowhere…no interest or action to this present day. Lack of research grant money I'd assume was the cause of this lack of follow up, as these scientists are all very intent on discovering cancer cures. Obviously, all research areas demand adequate funds to be deployed in order to do this.

So, what I can say right now with confidence, as the person securing this seemingly impossible cancer cure for myself? To start with, it is not rocket science to advise ill people to improve their diets, take selective high quality supplements, stay calm, get proper sleep and avoid toxic substances. Anyone who wishes to dispute any of this please be specific about your concerns in the comments and not just offer generic criticism, as that obviously takes this important conversation nowhere, just shuts it down on repeat, which is what is happening online and in person right now on this topic.

The argument that holistic health protocols are a veritable death trap is all becoming extremely tedious and ridiculous. No statistics support these statements when applied to the holistic practices that show scientific rigour. "Follow the science" will show this to be true.

There are an alarming number of attacks now on holistic medicine on the internet and many of the world's most prolific accomplished and scientifically based natural health practitioners have been periodically either heavily censored or algorithmically buried. The Natural Health website greenmedinfo.com is a prime example. This site presents the most extensive library of scientific research and discussion on a vast array of topics, both of conventional and alternative health, all in the one spot. Now why would that need to be buried? Good question since "the science" is indeed there, so what is the actual threat here? What is the "danger"?

The majority of botanical substances and minerals that are being utilised as supplements in alternative cancer care by skilled natural health practitioners have high level research behind them, and many have over 25 centuries of anecdotal cultural use. As an example, there have been nearly 3000 research papers published just on the therapeutic power of turmeric. The extraordinarily long real-world timeline for the many herbs that are still being used by entire countries of people to heal a battery of health conditions, including cancer, is to be applauded and not medically nuked.

The medical profession needs to have a hard look at its own patch before it denigrates the entire alternative health profession so summarily. What is needed is a strong focus on known efficacious natural health protocols in cancer research so that we can all move forward with far more good outcomes and far less deaths. Isn't that surely what we are all after?

By comparison, and talking about the "dangerous" tag, let's look at how "safe and effective" and properly clinically trialled the conventional medical toolbox actually is. Statistics show that the number of adverse drug reactions in the EU and US annually is huge, yet this is never mentioned in these broadscale and hysterical alternative medicine attacks.

Epidemiology of Adverse Drug Reactions in Europe: A Review of Recent Observational Studies, 31^st March 2015

In Europe, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause a considerable amount of morbidity and mortality. It has been estimated that approximately 5 % of all hospital admissions are caused by ADRs, that 5 % of hospitalized patients will experience an ADR during their hospital stay, and that ADRs cause 197,000 deaths annually throughout the EU. These estimates formed the foundation of a major reform of the European regulatory system for pharmacovigilance, which was implemented in July 2012.

So… we have the pot veritably calling the kettle black here. The number of deaths from supplement misadventure is currently recorded as zero. Correct, zero. It's just that dangerous!!! Continue reading…

Death from Supplements? Physical Health, 8^thMay2019

According to the most recent report, ZERO Americans died from taking any supplement in 2013. That includes anything from substances that must be taken with care and medical guidance, such as kava kava or yohimbe, or ayurvedic medicines (which must be sourced with care to be sure they are free from heavy metals), to standard vitamins and amino acids, to the gentlest homeopathic remedies.

Of course, to most of us in the natural health world, this is unsurprising. Dietary supplements have an exemplary track record of safety. In fact, ANH International calculated that, according to the European Union's own data, we are more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than die from taking a supplement.

Properly prescribed (FDA-approved) prescription drugs, on the other hand, cause an estimated 1.9 million hospitalisations or hospital treatments and 128,000 deaths each year. And this is very incomplete data because it only concerns hospitals.'

So, continuing on this whole train of thought, we know that medications in general and for various reasons have a pretty epic mortality rate, but do cancer drugs in particular also fall into this bracket? What is their risk benefit ratio?

Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life?

You don't need to know, according to our broken regulatory system

This article was published in the British Medical Journal in 2017. It describes how cancer drugs offer minimal benefit and most that were approved between 2008 and 2013 had no evidence of survival or improved quality of life. Only 14-15% of these drugs had been shown to improve survival or quality of life. The other 85% did the opposite. Terrible odds if you ask me!! Why would anyone agree to them? Three other facts emerged in this paper. Firstly, regarding the drugs that did offer survival advantages, the gains were only marginal with improvement in survival sitting at just 2.1 months. Approximately 48% of this marginally increased survival group failed to meet the modest definition of "clinically meaningful benefit". Secondly, unrepresentative patient populations were used in trials – those who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations. When this marginal drug advantage is applied to a realworld population, the small benefit disappears completely. Finally, these outcomes are poorly correlated with survival and these drugs have no post marketing requirements for further trials to confirm effectiveness and safety.

Direct quote from the above article:

The expense and toxicity of cancer drugs means we have an obligation to expose patients to treatment only when they can reasonably expect an improvement in survival or quality of life. The study by Davis and colleagues suggests we may be falling far short of this important benchmark.

These articles below have come from the experiences of editors of two of the world's most prestigious medical journals.

Ex-editor of NEJM tells how Big Pharma has corrupted academic institutions, 5^th May 2010

In the May/June 2009 issue of the Boston Review, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, details the sordid story of how corporate dollars have corrupted research and education at academic medical centres - including at her current place of employment, the Harvard Medical School.

To a remarkable extent … medical centres have become supplicants to the drug companies, deferring to them in ways that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Often, academic researchers are little more than hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to instructions from corporate paymasters. The sponsors keep the data, analyse it, write the papers, and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. In multi-centre trials, researchers may not even be allowed to see all of the data, an obvious impediment to science and a perversion of standard practice."

Conflicts of interest affect more than research. They also directly shape the way medicine is practiced, through their influence on practice guidelines issued by professional and governmental bodies and through their effects on FDA decisions." Angell offers several examples, including this one: "In 2004, after the NIH National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the acceptable levels of 'bad' cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Drug companies support educational programs even within our best medical schools and teaching hospitals, and are given virtually unfettered access to young doctors to ply them with gifts and meals and promote their wares. … This is marketing masquerading as education. … But doctors do learn something from all the ostensible education they're paid to receive. Doctors and their patients come to believe that for everyailment and discontent there is a drug, even when changes in lifestyle would be more effective. And they believe that the newest, most expensive brand-name drugs are superior to older drugs or generics, even though there is seldom any evidence to that effect because sponsors don't usually compare their drugs with older drugs at equivalent doses.

Why we can't trust clinical guidelines. 14^th June 2013, BMJ

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Offline, What is medicine's 5 sigma?11^th April 2015, The Lancet

More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

To summarise, no wonder some people choose to opt out. It is their choice and they should not be maligned for making it. There is an inherent danger in accepting conventional cancer treatment that needs to NOT be hidden from the patient.

This statement below is from another American doctor who works closely with cancer and explains the dilemma some doctors themselves face if they opt to recommend an alternative health protocol.

Integrative Approaches for Cancer, an interview with Pierre Kory MD, 1^st September 2024

While there are certain therapeutic principles that are relatively universal with cancer, in most cases, what each patient will respond to greatly differs. Because of this, if you use a safe but unapproved therapy that has a 50% success rate, you can easily find yourself in the position where the patient who received it still dies-at which point whoever provided the therapy can be found liable by a medical board (which does happen). Conversely, if you use an approved therapy that has a 10% success rate and a high rate of harm, there is no liability for the oncologist who prescribed it.

Chemotherapy and radiation are incredibly toxic and are carcinogenic in action themselves. Your exposure to either of these treatments increases your chance of contracting a whole plethora of other cancers also. That's the point where I personally could not proceed with this option. These treatments also offer no certain cure …just continued fear that the effect of these treatments will cause further cancer. These treatments cause so much collateral damage to the body also, much of it irreparable.

So again, the point I am trying to make is that the accusation of rigorous holistic practices being dangerous in either their inherent properties, or dangerous as a choice for treating cancer, must be countered by the fact that many conventional medical practices are proven dangerous, not backed by valid clinical research and don't offer a cure. Hence, it's understandable why people try the holistic approach. That's why I did and I am not alone. Sometimes it's incredibly successful and sometimes it's not. Much more research needs to be done to establish which of these holistic strategies are effective. The glaring problem being that no research money is offered where there is no pharmaceutical profit point. The organic farmers would do alright!!

The majority of doctors in Australia are also unaware of the countries where integrative oncology is practised. There they have multi-disciplinary teams, and doctors are included in these teams. The major focus is on relief of symptoms, quality of sleep, nutrition, nutraceutical/herbs, repurposed drugs and lifestyle changes. What is wrong with that?

So, to those laying into Elle for her choice and me also…I wish you the very best if you are ever placed in the position of choosing which way to go. If you have been through this health crisis already and had great lasting success with the conventional oncology route, good on you. If you have chosen my way and also had success, it certainly demonstrates that holistic health is not 'quackery'.

It's personal choice whatever a person decides to do health-wise with their health predicament. Medical treatments should also never be mandated, in full consideration of the lack of clinical trial validity discussed by the editors of the BMJ and the NEJM. Very few prescribed medications are indeed fully "safe and effective" for everyone. So, let us leave off this discussion with statements of fact and not fiction. Always the safest way to go!