Alternative Cancer Treatment | Cancer Cure | Cancer Remedies

There is always a plethora of cancer stories in the press that speak of hope and promise for the ever-ending cascade of new drugs and various treatments.  In fact, I’ve noticed that there has been a promising new drug, therapy, or treatment that will change things that is ‘just around the corner’ for as long as I can remember, which is over 30 years ago.  What gives?

For example, I found an article about an experimental drug called PLX4032, which is said to reverse the effects of a gene mutation that is found in certain tumors.  They say that it is a prototypical example of the new approach to cancer treatment.  This is a strategy in which the cancer is targeted based on genotypes, and other various biomarkers of the cancer cell.

In some patients, the drug was said to have produced great results.  But when this drug was given to patients with colorectal tumors with the same gene mutation, it failed miserably.  This was a ‘flashing red light’ to me that strongly implies that the present paradigm is not correct, and is not working. continue reading…

I came across a report that claims that the anticancer drug, Avastin, can help ovarian cancer patients.  The drug, which is commonly used to treat colon, breast and brain cancers, now may have an application in ovarian cancer.

Researchers added Avastin to a standard chemotherapy and maintenance regimen to a group of women with cancer of the ovaries or closely related areas. They found that the women who were given Avastin lived an average of four months longer without the disease progressing than those who did not receive it.

Avastin is not without a level of controversy in its history.  Some experts objected to FDA approval of it for metastatic breast cancer because the drug only slows tumor growth, but fails to extend survival.  The FDA approved it for use anyway, even though a panel of outside advisers voted 5 to 4 against approval.  Although Avastin reduces tumor size and shows an increase in progression-free survival time, it does not prolong or increase the quality of life for late-stage cancer patients. continue reading…

Cancer researchers claim to have found a ‘molecular switch’ that can render anti-cancer drugs less effective in pancreatic cancer.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly forms of cancer, and is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States.  This is largely due to the fact that only 10% of pancreatic cancers remain in the pancreas.  They usually metastasize.

Researchers readily admit that the tumors initially respond to the chemotherapy treatment (the standard chemotherapeutic drug is gemcitabine), but that they later on begin growing again.  They are attempting to figure out how to bypass the method that cancer cells utilize to defeat chemotherapy treatments. continue reading…

Looks like the experts are grasping for straws from the same old paradigm that hasn’t produced a cure for cancer in 50+ years of research.  Now they’re claiming that some bone drug (bisphosphonates) is reducing breast cancer rates in women who take them.  It is given to women to fight osteoporosis. Experts do not really know how the drug works to reduce cancer, but they have some speculation on the topic.  So even though they claim to be the experts, they do not appear to have any real understanding of cancer, how it works, and how it can be cured or effectively treated.  They also state in another article that this drug should not be used on women who do not have osteoporosis.

I may seem to be a bit reactionary, but the simple fact is that all drugs have side effects.  The drug approach can only be a temporary approach, at best. continue reading…

I found an article that describes a medical student who is suffering from brain cancer.  It is a sad article, but it caught my attention.  This medical student is 24 years old, and is searching for a cure for his cancer.  He is being treated with conventional medical techniques.  He is receiving radiation, chemotherapy and surgery to treat his brain cancer.

The laboratory in which he works is located at Northwestern University.  His lead researcher, Dr. Markus Bredel’, stated that brain cancer is a genetic disease.  This statement did not make sense to me.  In a normal gene, the DNA is designed to produce the RNA that is used to produce the enzymes and proteins that are necessary for normal bodily function.  How is brain cancer a part of a normal human genome?  Or does he mean that DNA damage is responsible for brain cancer?  There are a multitude of chemicals that are released by modern industry that can cause damage to DNA, so this may be possible.  In short, I didn’t see any evidence that supported the idea that brain cancer is genetic other than the credential of this researcher who made the statement. I’m just not so sure about the truth of that. continue reading…

When dealing with cancer (or just about any other issue facing us today), one of the most important issues facing someone is the very foundation of the thinking related to the topic.  The underlying assumptions and framework of the paradigm are very powerful and determine the final outcome of all conclusions that can be reached.  In the same way that only apple trees can grow from apple seeds, a conclusion based in truth cannot be reached if the intellectual framework of the paradigm is faulty.

In my research on the topic, I see a feverish work level and voluminous amounts of research papers being published.  But I have not seen many (or any) studies that challenge the basic tenets of cancer that enable any breakthroughs to be made.  If the same level of thinking that have led us to the point we are at now is maintained, how will we ever get more effective results if we remain wedded to these concepts? continue reading…