Usually the above phrase is understood as a variety of treatment methods, often absolutely inadequate, efficiency and safety of which has not been scientifically proven. And, perhaps, such treatment belongs to the area of fantasy at best, and that is all to say. But, unfortunately, when it comes to malignant tumors there are simply no effective, safe, painless or proven ways to cure patients from cancer. What can oncologists really suggest in this situation? They can prescribe chemotherapy medications to inhibit the tumor. Following that they, perhaps, are going to prescribe a palliative care or hospice care and by doing so they will ease and extend the process of dying. In the meanwhile there are natural cancer cures that work. One of them is the immunotherapy for cancer treatment.
MD, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania
American oncologist and bioethicist Dr. E. Emanuel believes that real efficacy of experimental and alternative treatment of malignant tumors varies from 11 to 27% (average efficacy is equal to 22%). It is concluded that patients undergoing stage 4 cancer treatment need to have wider access to information about alternative treatment plans and, accordingly, they and their relatives must have the right to know what are their real chances for recovery from using this or that treatment strategy. In addition, looking for the way out of and natural remedies for cancer implies continuing fighting the disease. And if a person doesn’t give up, it means that he or she is maintaining a higher quality of his or her life.
Professor of Clinical Microbiology at the University of Western Australia
In the 80s of the past century Marshall and Warren published a hypothesis in The Lancet asserting that Helicobacter pylori (HP) causes peptic ulcer and gastric cancer. Barry Marshall wrote: “People from medical and scientific circles were laughing. No one believed us. Even though everyone was against me, I knew I was right”. And they really were right. In 2005 Marshall and Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of “the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease”.
Therefore it has been established that Helicobacter pylori (HP) is the cause of two types of malignant gastric tumors:
In 2013 scientists managed to answer a very important question: “Why Helicobacter does not trigger the disease in everyone who is infected?” Half of the world population is infected with Helicobacter pylori. However, only 10% of all those infected develop inflammatory processes that lead to the development of ulcer disease and cancer.
Professor of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology
Researchers from the University of California led by Karen Ottemann have established that other types of bacteria in human stomach are rivals of H.рylori and stomach microflora determines whether disease will develop or not. Many doctors are absolutely sure, as they were two hundred years ago, that human stomach is practically sterile, however, in reality it is populated with a great variety of bacteria that determine the risks of cancer development. In fact, some studies have found that the presence of Helicobacter in stomach can be good, as it can, for instance, protect against esophageal cancer and even asthma. If we could understand what microflora reduces the disease development risk, then we would be able to predict, who of the patients are most likely to develop it and treat them from the infection or populate their stomach with proper bacteria. There is no doubt that professor Ottemann’s discovery is going to revolutionize cancer treatment strategies and make them more effective, and serve as an alternative to modern cancer treatment practices.
In the course of recent observational studies conducted by German scientists from Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf it has been revealed that 60 to 93% of patients with localized high-differentiated gastric B-cell lymphoma experience gradual recovery from the malignant tumor as a result of simple and inexpensive antibacterial therapy. That means that this simple therapy allows patients to refuse from taking expensive and dangerous specialized antitumor treatment that implies radical surgery, radiation exposure and chemo.
It should be separately noted that Barry Marshall managed to present the evidence proving that fatal diseases can also be cured in an alternative way, which is not just blindly following inhumane strategies of pharmaceutical companies. By simply curing the infection within a fortnight with trivial antibacterial medications a person protects himself/herself from gastric cancer or saves himself/herself from lymphoma. Pharmaceutical companies have a strong lobby of the use of expensive drugs and demonize all alternative cancer treatment centers. Because their drugs do not affect the cause of the disease patients are forced to expose themselves to lifelong little efficient treatment.
Orthodox oncology argues that cancer is a result of random genetic mutations. However, Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver believe that cancer is caused by a set of genes inherited by a person from his/her ancient ancestors and that is responsible for cells’ specialization mechanisms and is being activated on early embryonic development stages. This set of genes or a connected gene complex malfunctions in adults upon exposure to chemical substances, radiation or inflammatory processes.
Several global study groups provide evidence that gene expression in tumor and in embryo have a lot in common, thus, supporting the theory expressed by Davies and Lineweaver. Davies emphasizes the need to take a fundamentally new look at the nature of cancer and look for ways of immune treatment for cancer.
Surgical procedures, radiation therapy and chemotherapy are the core of modern specialized treatment of cancer patients.
The growth of knowledge in the sphere of cellular and molecular biology has been substantially advancing our understanding of the nature and mechanisms of malignant transformation and tumor growth, which, in its turn, increases a number of critical comments concerning standard treatment methods for oncological diseases and increasingly draws attention to healing cancer naturally.
Sometimes the removal of primary tumor and operational trauma lead to rapid growth of metastases. It is related to the well-known phenomenon of inhibition of metastatic lesions by the primary tumor. And, accordingly, the removal of primary tumor releases the inhibition effect and separate metastases begin growing faster. The main reason of subsequent mortality in such patients is the growth of metastases that often affect several vital organs.
M.D., Ph.D. Professor Experimental Radiation Oncology
Radiation therapy for breast cancer kills approximately the half of cancer cells, but the remaining breast cancer cells are being transformed into even more aggressive and dangerous cancer stem cells that are far more resistant to treatments. In fact, these radiation-induced cancer stem cells have shown an increase in their metastatic propensity that is 30 times higher than of those breast cancer cells before radiation exposure. This latest study raises serious concerns about the viability of radiation therapy for cancer patients.
Radiation therapy cannot save a sick person if he/she has multiple remote metastases or the tumor grows into, for instance, the walls of large vessels. Moreover, some tumors are radio-resistant – have enhanced radiation resistance – from the very beginning. This peculiarity is common for salivary gland tumors, gastric and colorectal cancers, as well as skin melanoma. In order to damage such tumor sufficiently the surrounding tissues will have to be seriously damaged too.
American scientists have recently discovered that the length of roentgen radiation wave that is used for breast cancer treatment transforms tumor cells into cancer stem cells that are far more dangerous.
Previously it was considered that all tumor cells are growing fast, but recently it has been discovered that tumor also has stem cells that divide slowly and are chemo-resistant due to their peculiarities. And if in the course of a therapy the tumor size was substantially reduced, for example, by 10 times, from ten centimeters to one centimeter, previously it was considered a great success.
But now it is clear that the size of tumor is not as important as the ability of cancer stem cells to survive the therapy. If cancer stem cells survive, the tumor starts growing all over again. Each chemo makes tumor even more resistant to treatments and patient’s health deteriorates further. One of the possible outcomes is when due to overall bad condition of patient taking chemo is not possible and tumor continues growing. For example, in the treatment of epidermoid carcinoma or pancreatic adenocarcinoma chemotherapy yields practically no positive results.
American scientists from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute published an explanation in Science Magazine that chemo primarily affects dying cancer cells (that are on the brink of self-destruction), and practically has no effect on tumor cells that are viable. In other words, cancer cells that are on the brink of apoptosis are more sensitive to chemo than other cells.
“We have established a high degree of correlation between cancer cells that were highly prone to self-destruction and cells that were highly sensitive to chemo”, senior author of the paper Anthony Letai asserts. “Many chemo drugs damage the structure of cancer cells, including the DNA and microtubules”, he explains.
Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Center
Ulrich Abel has disclosed one of the important oncology secrets that until recently has been concealed from the public eye. There has never been any study that can prove that patients have more chances to survive if they take chemo. All the studies only compared the efficacy of new toxic drugs with the existing drugs.
Modern oncology is experiencing the deepest crisis ever. Chemotherapy is the main treatment method in oncology and in case of advanced tumors it is often the only treatment available. Today it is not possible to conceal the minimal clinical efficacy of toxic therapy in saving cancer patients.
Three prominent Australian oncologists have published an article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology containing the results of their studies based on the analysis of official records of treatment of adult cancer patients who took chemotherapy in Australia (72,964 patients) and in the United States (154,971 patients).
It was concluded that the overall contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies is 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA. Authors question how is it possible that such an insignificantly effective in terms of patient survival chemotherapy can be matched with the increase in price and successful sales of cytotoxic drugs amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars?
The efficacy of chemotherapy in 5-year survival comes down to naught for pancreatic, ovarian, bladder, prostate, kidney, gastric cancers as well as for soft tissue sarcoma, melanoma, brain tumors, and advanced myeloma.
Professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Coordinating Editor, VA Cochrane Collaborative Review Group for Prostatic Diseases & Urologic Malignancies
Moreover, there is no confidence in the correctness of selected treatment strategies in the modern oncology. One of the latest studies led by Timothy Wilt that shocked oncologists during the 27th annual congress of European association of urology (Paris, 2012), started in 1993. The study included 731 prostate cancer patients whose health was monitored during the period of 12 years. The study compared the condition of prostate cancer patients after prostate removal with those who refused to do the operation and decided to wait.
It was established that the survival of those who had surgery was 3% higher; at the same time it is entirely possible that this 3% difference is after all a “probable error”. And in case of a slowly growing prostate cancer the treatment can be more damaging than the oncological condition is. Side effects related to surgery and radiation therapy include urinary incontinence, impotence and serious bowel dysfunction. Treatment reduces the quality of life of patients and brings serious social and economic troubles along. Wilt’s studies found their confirmation in Great Britain. It was established that surgical procedures often do not improve the survival statistics in prostate cancer patients. Thousands of patients undergo painful surgeries that virtually have no benefit.
Main slogan of oncologists: “The sooner tumor is detected, the more chances for success” is in question...
Oncology report of the U.S. National Cancer Institute revealed unexpected results that shocked the medical community. The report was prepared by a working group that included prominent scientists-oncologists representing leading U.S. cancer research institutes.
There is a postulate in oncology according to which it is necessary to detect the tumor as soon as possible and immediately start the treatment. However, early detection has led to unexpected consequences. The concept of an ‘early detection’ has some critical weaknesses, since diagnostic methods used in oncology cannot assess for sure the degree of potential malignancy of tumor cells. This has led to a very important conclusion: wrong cancer diagnosis is one of the main reasons of cancer epidemic in the U.S.
Millions of people are exposed to a very dangerous and expensive treatment involving a standard set of oncological aids — surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In reality patients do not need this kind of intervention. In fact, this comprehensive and specialized treatment provokes cancer development in the area of potentially harmless growth. Active treatment results into a formidable malignant tumor, which often leads to patient’s death.
The scientists also drew attention to rather benign changes in the mammary gland — ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which in all probability would have never caused any health problems. However, millions of women with DCIS were wrongly diagnosed and subsequently treated as if they had a breast cancer. Same applies to men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), who were treated as if they had prostate cancer. The working group suggested to completely remove DCIS and HGPIN from the list of cancer diseases.
Author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the U.S. National Health Federation
Sayer Ji argues that “Even in case of an early detection of tumor, the use of specialized oncological treatment leads to the increase in initially insignificant subpopulation of cancer stem cells within such tumors and transforms the tumor into more aggressive and malignant one.”
Hardly anyone remembers that as far back as in 2000 Irvin D. Bross wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute:
“To the contrary, ‘early detection’ is marked with a deplorable increase in breast cancer treatment. Please note, treatment, but not for breast cancer! The thing is that mammography detects the initial cancer stage (ductal carcinoma in situ, DCIS). If mammography gives DCIS diagnosis, then, as rule, the detected lump is subsequently removed surgically and breast is exposed to radiation. Sometimes the entire breast is amputated and patient takes chemo. However, 80% of all initial cancer stages (DCIS) never advance further, even if it was not treated at all! In fact, the percentage of false-positive cancer tests is high.”
This publication did not go unnoticed for its authors. Angered doctors and experts form the National Cancer Institute (USA) punished Dr. Bross and his colleagues for this discovery. The scientists were removed from participation in a successful national breast cancer research program, they received a denial of financial support in their mathematical surveys in the sphere of oncology and everything was made to make sure that this discovery is not published anywhere else.
The report of a working group of the National Cancer Institute was preceded by publication of unique and unexpected results that had been received upon collection of breast cancer statistics in the Norwegian Institute of Public Health that found its confirmation in a number of studies conducted by their colleagues from the U.S. The study was conducted by Per-Henrik Zahl, Jan Mæhlen and Gilbert Welch. Having compared the data from X-ray images of mammary glands (mammograms) of women for the period of six years the doctors noticed that in number of cases visible changes in mammary glands that could be taken for a malignant tumor disappeared with time without any treatment. It was not possible to find any traces of cancer on more recent mammograms of those women. It was assumed for the first time ever that traceless disappearance of malignant tumors is there and it occurs quite often.
M.D., M.P.H., Professor from the Dartmouth Institute, author of “Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why” from Oslo University Hospital
An expert comparison of two large groups (over 100,000) of women at the ages from 50 to 64 was held in the course of two subsequent 6-year periods of examination of their mammary glands.
Existing treatment methods in modern oncology are extremely primitive, pointless and practically ineffective for inhibiting the most common metastasizing malignant tumors that often lead to human deaths. Oncologists had a very convenient procedure for many years. They have always been telling their patients with a little bit of sadness: “So why have you come to us so late, if you regularly had medical examinations, followed our recommendations concerning the early detection of cancer, then everything would have been alright.” It is a very convenient blame-shifting method for inefficiency of entire branch of medicine onto patients, isn’t it? So what is becoming more obvious now? For example, oncologists say that it is required to have mammography done regularly for an early detection of breast cancer. But, Canadian scientists under the leadership of Anthony B. Miller have analyzed mammary glands observation in 90,000 women at the ages from 45 to 60 in the course of 25 years. It turned out that breast cancer mortality rate in women who regularly had mammography and women who did not have it at all was the same!
Therefore, even early detection of tumor gives no guarantees to patients and provides no additional hopes for recovery from breast cancer. At the same time the treatment is becoming more expensive every year, sometimes reaching hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars for an attempt to save a single patient.
The funds are also being spent on supporting the myth about state-of-the-art, research intense and efficient modern medical services in oncology. Cancer patients also face a time-tested strategy of pharmaceutical giants that implies continuous, lifelong administration of expensive drugs, in this case chemotherapeutic agents, which do not affect the cause of disease (until patient dies).
The answer is quite simple — failure of traditional medicine in treatment of metastasizing tumors. However, there are methods that can help to treat even stage 4 cancer. Any treatment should not start from blindly following doctors, but from using your own mind.
Best natural cure for cancer is cancer immunotherapy with bee medicines. Savin’s Apiary is a natural cancer treatment center helping people with cancer diseases for over 27 years. Take a more detailed look at our treatment methods, check the feedback and ask for a free consultation.
M.D., oncologist, oncosurgeon, chemotherapist and author of 59 scientific works. He has an extensive experience working in the best medical centers of Ukraine. He also lectured departmental surgery, general surgery, and oncology.
of our patients are willing
to recommend us to others
Free online cancer consultation via chat. Ask your questions
Do you want to know whether the immunotherapy will help in your specific condition?
Contact our consultant
Free consultation request concerning cancer treatment with immunotherapyLeave a request
Or call us and we will try to answer all your questions. Mon-Sun, 9 AM to 8 PM+1 (305) 728 86 24
Undergoing traditional treatment and have questions? Get advice from Savin's Apiary firstname.lastname@example.org