Ted Kennedy, Farah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze.....all recent hi-profile victims of cancer who could afford the best healthcare in the world. All three suffered through the devastating side effects of orthodox treatment - chemo, et al - and all three succumbed to the disease within 2 or 3 years of diagnosis. One could be forgiven for asking: isn't there another way?
If you pose this to an oncologist, he/she will most likely respond with dire warnings about wasting precious time and money on quackery instead of the officially "approved" treatments.
These "approved" treatments are based on the long-held definition of cancer as, essentially, the tumor. Such thinking has led to dependence on therapies, like chemo and radiation, which kill cancer cells, but can harm healthy cells and severely deplete the body's natural defenses. These protocols can buy time, but have no intrinsic healing properties. The yardstick of success for the medical establishment is the 5-year survival rate. While 5-year survival rates have increased because of earlier detection, the statistic that really counts is the deaths per 100,000, which have steadily increased since Nixon declared "War on Cancer" in 1971.
The biological repair approach, which our organization, the Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy (F.A.C.T.), has espoused since it inception in 1971, views cancer in a very different way - as a systemic problem. Tumors and abnormal cells are symptoms of a breakdown in the balance of body chemistry. By rebalancing and strengthening all body functions with a comprehensive, non-toxic, metabolic program, including organic nutrition, detoxification and other therapies, the body's innate healing capacity becomes energized and takes charge. The yardstick of success is long-term recovery - 10, 20, 30 plus years.
Many alternative cancer therapies also, regrettably, follow the conventional model, scoring success in terms of tumor reduction, albeit with perhaps less toxic agents, though not always. Our experience of nearly 40 years at F.A.C.T., however, has taught us that unless the root cause - the chemical breakdown - is corrected, long term health cannot truly be restored. No magic bullet - miracle herb, megavitamin, super food or "blockbuster" drug - can supply all the materials necessary to rebuild a body with a complex, chronic condition like cancer.
With this in mind, perhaps it's time to rethink the most basic tenets of the reigning approach to cancer and other serious diseases?
This is the essence of the new documentary film, Rethinking Cancer. Five long-term survivors, whose recoveries range from 15-37 years, explain why and how they went a different route with cancer, and, in one case, Lyme disease. Some were led to seek out alternatives after the standard course of treatment failed - literally sent home to die by physicians who said they could do no more for them. Others, after long investigation and soul searching, bravely chose the non-toxic, biorepair course of action because it seemed a more sensible, logical approach - that healing could be better fostered by nourishing, repairing and detoxifying the body, rather than being subjected to toxic substances that would cause further damage and side effects without addressing the underlying problem.
A key factor in these success stories also seems to be that each of the 5 took an active role in designing and carrying out their treatment. These five cases are representative of a large and growing pool of well-documented, long-term recovered patients from across the nation.
The path these patients took may not be for everyone, but it's certainly worth knowing about. Patients and doctors have a right to be informed about all viable medical options, especially when facing a life-and-death struggle with an adversary like cancer.
Loading comments… 
However, I do not trust the integrity of this author, and be extension, of her organizati
"A recent study of the 64 oncologist
In actuality, the study was asking what doctors thought of some specific and experiment
I fully agree chemothera
However, the fact is that Ms Reyes blatantly misreprese
This accords with many conversati
In any case, regardless of what they would do for themselves or their families, oncologist
Are you saying that your program has had success at treating patients with advanced pancreatic cancer?
Pancreatic cancer can be extremely aggressive if the malignancy is in the head of the organ. (If in the tail, it’s usually slow growing and bares “watchful waiting.”) We have seen good results when these cancers were caught early on. If progressio
A quick look at Ms Reyes' bio shows that she has no profession
Should research continue on other means of fighting cancers - sure. Remember, cancer is just a descriptiv
"the 5 patients in the film are representa
I have been to her organizati
If these patients are indeed part of a large pool of well documented long term survivors, I invite the author of the article to provide us with a link detailing the success stories of any cancer patients other than the 5 presented in the documentar
Allow me to reiterate, we are not offering guarantees
if one lives long enough..on
my good friend died within a year of her diagnosis of IBC. She had surgery and the chemo...an
it was all for naught....
The treatment didn't save her....and she spent the last weeks of her life trying to keep from vomiting up the vitamins and minerals. Frankly I saw no diference between that and her chemo.
and that's my ancedotal story.....
but one might see how I might be very skeptical of people who make claims based on the ancedotal.
I work at a non profit cancer hospital which uses both convention
Were I to develop cancer while young, and have a type of cancer for which such treatments had a high success rate, I would do them.
However, if I was elderly, or if I had a type of cancer with a very low success rate with drugs/chem
Patients really look at the side effects vs the chance of success, and decide what is right for them. I would always advise people to go to a non profit health center if possible, where you will not have a medical team who is pushing pricey therapies on a patient who will likely not benefit from them.
Unfortunat
I strongly suggest you visit our website and read about the concept and particular
It is a little known fact that many of our politician
A great book on the subject is; "You Can Prevent Breast Cancer" by Harvey Diamond
http://www
Harvey Diamond is the co-author of the best seller "Fit For Life".
However, some types of cancer are due to old age or genetics. Genetics has long been a suspect in cacner, after all, you'll see families in which generation after generation has multiple members who get the same kind of cancer. But we were able to confirm this after the completion of the human genome project.
However, the #1 reason people get cancer is because they are old and their body is simply breaking down.
How do you suggest treating the elderly and those with cancer genes, for whom nutrition is not an issue? Babies can be BORN with cancer. I am a healthcare worker, and while I was living in Europe we had a vegan mother who gave birth to two baby girls who were BORN with leukemia. How exactly do you plan to use nutrition to treat babies who had cancer upon birth to a vegan mom?
As for old age, 100 years ago cancer rates were relatively low. Many lived into their 80’s and 90’s and died natural deaths – something quite rare these days. We’ve come to expect that chronic disease is inevitable with age. I submit it is not! Health is our birthright
But a few anecdotes don't constitute science. Have there been double-bli
Thanks!
I'd suggest you take a look at the film and website - then decide what you think.
May I ask how asking for facts is incongruen
Should we wait 'til it's 1 in 1 who will get cancer before we rethink the way we're living?