The media often deals harshly with somebody who has cancer who turns down medical treatment, turns to natural cancer therapies and subsequently dies. The success of a natural cancer treatment is evaluated on whether the person who’s ill survives a natural lifetime. But this is not the case for medical treatments. Medical treatments such like surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy often use much “softer” proof of success.
When comparing results it’s important to ensure that like is compared with like.
Success in chemotherapy and radiotherapy is oftentimes measured, not in terms of improved longevity but in terms of the regression of the tumor. There is an assumption that whether or not the tumor reduces in size that the sick person should do much better in the longer term. This idea looks to be common sense, but it is having not been proven to be the case.
It’s clear that those who respond to chemotherapy do much better than those who don’t. But there is no research which shows that a reduction of tumor size is linked to improved longevity when compared to those who are not treated. And radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments cannot be said to be efficient whether or not this case is not made.
Would the sick person (and his family) feel that regression of the tumor was a “successful outcome” whether or not he still passed from physical life in the same time frame as whether or not he was not treated, and whether or not he suffered terribly from side effects of the treatments during the process?
A second measurement is the number of persons who survive to five years. A doctor who gets more persons who requires medical care to the five year mark than his colleagues may feel a personal triumph but the family whose mother dies at five years and three days will feel just as devastated as whether or not the mother dies three days prior to the five years. In the initial case the sick person is indicated as having a successful outcome and in the second as a less successful one. But for the family it’s the same.
A 3rd definition the medical profession use is the length of obvious tumor-free time till metastases appear. They call this illness free time, but whether or not the illness usually returns it seems disingenuous to pretend that the treatment made the sick person illness-free. Notwithstanding the point as issue here is whether tumor-free time is a success whether or not the sick person then goes on to die in the same time frame as they would whether or not they had not been treated?
Numerous medical masters get very anxious and often very annoyed whether or not you ask for proof that the recommended treatment works. They can well spray around wondrous sounding percentages to “prove” that their recommendations will give a better prospect.
Notwithstanding there have likewise been numerous a time when the doctor (reluctantly) hands over the research just to find that the sick person or a member of their family dissects the research to find that the wondrous allocation improvements relate not to longevity but to tumor regression or to increased tumor-free time.
So whether or not your doctor is making allocation claims of success for a peculiar treatment ask what this means in terms of further and added years of survival. Whether or not he will not tell you or cannot tell you, then the prospect is that the research does not show such an increase. Whether or not he does claim years of increased longevity then ask him for a copy of the research that says this.
Whether or not the increased longevity is measured in only a small amount of months then only you will acknowledge whether or not the six to twelve months of treatments and side effects is worth two to four months of extra life, remembering naturally that you could just be one of the group of persons who don’t get that extra time.
Whether or not longevity with a high quality of life is your intent then think cautiously as to how much the offered medical treatment can increase your longevity alongside the high cost of treatment side effects. It is a perfectly valid option to decide against medical treatment for the moment and to choose to work with natural cancer therapies instead.
Dont forget that while natural cancer therapies haven’t been proven to work to the satisfaction of the medical profession neither have their own treatments (accept in a small amount of cases) been shown to be good at treating cancer. Self healing is a natural routine, built into our bodies.
Hence any natural cancer therapies which aid an improved immune system and a happier, more satisfying quality of life should be worthy of consideration.
