I recently had a discussion with an insurance agent, and as we talked, she revealed to me that she had lost her husband to cancer. We immediately struck up an in-depth conversation about cancer and all of the alternative cancer treatments that they had tried, but to no avail. She was very intelligent and appeared to be very knowledgeable about alternative cancer treatments. She was familiar with most of the treatments that I mentioned.
Luckily, it had been a while since she had lost her husband, so she wasn’t overwhelmed with emotions as we talked. But as we talked, I noticed that she thought that shrinking the tumor was the exact same thing as getting rid of the cancer. I told her that the tumor was NOT the same thing as the cancer. In fact, the tumor is merely a symptom of the cancer. When I said this, she disagreed with me, and said that the cancer and tumor were the same thing. I was astonished! I tried to explain this to her repeatedly. But she could not grasp what I was saying. I ran out of time with her, but I was left feeling like I didn’t do her justice because I could not get her to understand that the tumor and cancer are not the same thing.
I think that this is a result of the focus of oncologists. In fact, they actually evaluate cancer treatments based on how much they reduce the size of the tumor. In my studies, I have found that the tumor is merely a result of the metabolic state known as cancer. If the tumor is a symptom of the cancer, then merely shrinking the size of the tumor will not, and usually can not result in a cure from the cancer. Actually, the tumor is said to encapsulate the metastasis so that it doesn’t spread. This is how people can survive for years with tumors, either until the metabolic state of the body becomes overwhelmed and cannot be contained by the tumor, or until medical professionals release tumor cells into the body by piercing it during a biopsy. In fact, some people actually call a tumor a survival mechanism of the body. Some say that the tumor is the body’s way of cordoning off toxins that cannot be processed or eliminated from the body.
In my opinion, any approach that only seeks to treat the tumor without addressing the cause of the tumor cannot result in a long-term cure for cancer. Maybe this is why the rate of cancer returning to conventionally treated cancer is very high. Conventional cancer treatments treat the body as a battlefield instead of as an integrated system. How can toxins and poisons that make healthy people sick be good for long-term health for people that are ill? Yes, conventional cancer treatment ‘works’ for some people, but how many people are harmed by it? And how many people does it fail for? I’m not giving out medical advice, just asking people to think beyond the limits of conventional thinking. This isn’t for everybody, only for those people that may be considering alternatives to medical dogma.