3 Comments

  1. 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…..

  2. Andreas Kaubisch says:

    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

  3. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *