Ayurvedic Herbs Help Combat Brain and Lung Cancers
With cancer cures seeping into mainstream media from natural health practitioners almost weekly now, it makes one wonder why anyone would subject themselves to chemotherapy and radiation, since there is growing evidence that it poisons the body and simply causes the cancer cells to become temporarily dormant only to return later in fuller force.
While these treatments are often used unnecessarily to ‘treat’ cancer patients, there are other, less invasive cures being used by Ayurvedic clinics all over India and in other parts of the world – some solutions having as much as a 90% success rate.
In several clinics, lung and brain cancers have been treated with an over 90% success rate, and in almost every single case, the cancer was lessened.
According to a clinical research test conducted in one Ayurvedic Clinic, lung cancers were minimized so effectively that only .09% of the participants in one 500-plus-person study still remained ‘uncured.’
Dr. Vikram Chauhaun, M.D. recommends a whole list of Ayurvedic treatments to effectively help combat brain tumors caused by cancer, including herbs like Hirak Bhasma, Swarna Bhasma, Swarn Vasant Malti, and Abhrak Bhasma Sahasar Puti.
Other Ayurvedic remedies work on immunity and attempt to reverse metastasizing cells. These include Divya Shila Sindoor, which aids in treating lung cancers by supporting bronchial health – specifically by increasing red blood cell count, which is counterproductive for growing cancer cells. Much cancer research states that cancer cannot grow in a well oxygenated cellular system. The herb Heerak Bhasma has also been shown to support cancer prevention and reversal as well.
Dr. Garcia, M.D. states that chemotherapy only has an effectiveness rate around 3%. Many clinical studies are proving this is to be no exaggerated truth, though it is shocking. According to less slanted evidence that doesn’t exaggerate the improvement rate based on only a few cancers that have responded better to chemo than the rest, the most common cancers have much more disparaging recovery rates, like breast cancer 1.4%; prostate cancer 0.0%; lung cancer 2.0%; and colon cancer 1.0%.
A journal published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2004 even admitted that chemotherapy had a 98% failure rate. While this rate is arguable amongst medical practitioners and scientists, it is obvious that chemo is very hard on an individual and often causes them to feel sick for months at a time, lose their hair, have terrible headaches, and lose tons of weight. If there are more natural cures, such as those offered by a 5000-year old science, why not use them instead?
Christina,
as a >25 year practitioner of mainstream medicine,i wholeheartedly agree with the use of natural medicine,provided the evidence for its effectveness exists.
sofar i have been very impressed by the studies i've seen–just the results on tumeric alone are extremely impressive!
i have actively researched "integrative medicine,which attempts to combine the most effective,least harmful elements of both systems(—no easy task!)
to avoid oversimplification,you need to compare the full spectrum results of conventional medicine's treatment with complementary medicine.
there are a huge number of cancers and they also vary from individual to individual and in their "aggressiveness"i.e. ability to spread locally and to distant parts of the body(metastasize)
as you may know,cancer is usually diagnosed in various stages:local,regionally metastasized and distantly metastasized.
quite a high percentage of the first two categories are "cured" by surgery and or chemo/radiation and only in the last category,where surgery is not an option,do the disappointing results show up.
having said that, i know that for me personally,if i had stage 3 cancer,conventional treament would not be my first choice…..
I am a cancer doctor, and actually open to alternative treatments (read the Jimmy Keller Story by Ellen Brown).
However, this article is very poorly written, and shows no awareness whatsoever of how data is presented and reported. Looking at just one of the cited links is given to support the statement:
“only 0.9% of patients.. remained uncured”….
The actual data offered by the clinic (follow the link):
Results of 770 patients of various types of cancer treated at DARF during Jan.2004 to Dec.2004.
(1) Total no. of Primary cancer 504. In all 504 patients with primary cancer of various types were treated at DARF.
13% patients were rendered disease free
20.63% patients were markedly improved
65.27% patients were improved
0.9% patients were uncured
(2) Total no. of Secondary (metastases) cancer 266. In all 266 patients with metastases of different types were treated at DARF.
12.03% patients were rendered disease free
18.04% patients were markedly improved
68.79% patients were improved
1.12% patients were uncured
This means that 12 % are reported as having had a complete response, pretty good. However the other 88% had residual cancer, which presumably progressed and killed the patients. A bit misleading reporting here?
And of the 12% with a complete response, how many had their cancer come back (very common in lung cancer), how long did these patients live? We are missing a lot of info to just know what they are talking about.
Western scientific publications in cancer therapy are not perfect, but they will report:
– patient characteristics
– cancer histology (type)
– treatment drugs, doses, and schedules
– side effects
– detailed outcomes (response rate, time to progression, median/ overall survival etc)
This article does nothing to convince me, and I would like to believe there are good and effective non- chemo options.
Show us the data!
Andreas Kaubisch
About 10–15% of cases occur in people who have never smoked. These cases are often caused by a combination of genetic factors and exposure to radon gas,[4] asbestos,[5] or other forms of air pollution,[4] including second-hand smoke.[6][7] Lung cancer may be seen on chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans. The diagnosis is confirmed by biopsy[8] which is usually performed by bronchoscopy or CT-guidance.