I know Webster Kerr very well, yes. We don’t always agree but we respect each other.

Look forward to reading more.
Shane

P.S. And you use Thesis. You are a wise doctor indeed. 🙂

Well, let’s say I wouldn’t recommend it to my patients.
When you can prove something can have a negative weight, you might get me to look at the evidence (NOT testimonials).

In the end, I think the Australian chemo review…even allowing for a large margin of error… shows that whatever the improvements we are seeing in survival rates have little to do with chemo, and it is from something else.
http://scientificliving.net/2011/01/where-are-the-chemotherapy-statistics-i%E2%80%99ll-show-you/

It is such a learning process to root out the negative energy when sincerely criticizing mainstream medicine. I still have a long way to go with that process! In the end, making everyone into your sincere friend seems to be the only way of succeeding in convincing mainstream oncologists to jump into integrative medicine.

I try to tell people with cancer to kindly insist oncologists give them evidence in writing that a particular chemo regimen will help them. When they get awkward responses to that request, some start to think more seriously about the integrative approach.

I get weary of the cookie cutter mentality Steve. You disappoint me.
You don’t seem to have an original thought in your head, just parroting others, to use your own term.
You don’t seem to be aware you are writing one of the world’s leading pioneers in alternative health.
Please let me have the references for your “cancer research”, I am certainly keen to read it. Or maybe you could describe for me the methods you use, as a physician?
You hold patients in contempt whose choice it is to follow the orthodox path. Millions do and I know thousands personally who have turned to alternatives to help their fight, and done very well.
Along with an army of bigots out there, you seem to believe that YOU hold the poll position on what people should do and must do.
I, in my humble way, have allowed patients to do as they choose, with support for whatever path they decided upon.
I suggest you try and be a bit more humble and tolerant of different points of view than your own.
If I ever get cancer (God forbid) I would not choose chemo. I think it’s negative. But that doesn’t mean I deny others the right to think for themselves.
BTW you are silly and wrong: prostate cancer is not diagnosed by PSA – it’s diagnosed by biopsy. Maybe you don’t know as much as you claim?

As for “Where is your data to support the assumption this is the only kind of survival?”
I’m not saying that that this is the only way of survival, but what happens when people get surgery which is usually the first route (followed by either chemotherapy and/or radiation)? The surgeons are usually surgically removing an organ or an area, sometimes partially, sometimes fully. Unfortunately, it sometimes can be radical, depending on the location of the cancer, of course, because some function gets irreversibly changed or lost. As mentioned above, a full-spectrum approach needs to be made available in all oncology centers, so this can be done more reservedly.

As for “How do you explain the thousands of patients known to me who survived and did well after chemo etc?”
This is good news, and more should be done to follow up with these patients. Is it correct to assume that they had access to holistic therapies as part of their care? So that they are able to detoxify and supplement from the effects of not only the treatments, but of the disease itself, in creating a new internal environment. That’s just what I want to say, is that people need to be given the choice of say, having colonics, hydrotherapy and some other treatments as you mention in your book, as part of the treatment. Ideally, they should not have to go on a quest to find it for themselves. That’s all I’m saying, through my rant, lol.

With the explosion of cancer screenings being done in the 1970’s, more cancers are being diagnosed just because there’s a way of finding them (let alone the fact that there are more people getting cancer and the why, separate from the more ways to diagnose, NEVER gets addressed)- this would include many more EARLY-stage, DORMANT cancers and even false-positives than ever before (do the false positives balance out false-negatives – this would something else to find out about), so these could potentially dilute the statistics, making the death rates look like they’re going down, only because of the adding of so many more early, dormant cancers to the pool that weren’t terminal anyway.

When the cancer estbl. addresses why cancer has outtaken heart disease as the #1 killer in this country and focuses on prevention and reducing the toxicities associated with the development of cancer, then I’ll be happy to see what comes of statistics. I guess it’s hard to feel optimistic about supposed death rates from all cancers falling, when I see cancer clinics popping up everywhere in the past 10 years.

thanks for letting me comment!

Too much emotion here and not enough rational thinking.
What are you going to do about the 12 million survivors in the USA alone? Are their lives “not valid”, because they don’t fit your view of what is right and proper treatment? Did you ask them what their quality of life was like and whether it was worth trading for more years? I think their “testimonials” would be worth hearing. To me, you are making fun of others and dismissing those who go the conventional route as fools who end without a voice box etc. That’s very unkind. Where is your data to support the assumption this is the only kind of survival? How do you explain the thousands of patients known to me who survived and did well after chemo etc?
Also, you didn’t really read the article properly, did you? Just a few key words “triggered” your reactions.
Molecular biology is the ONLY way to go. Unless we understand our enemy, how do we hope to overcome it? Are you willing to go back to being an eskimo or tribal native in a mud hut, just to abolish cancer? I don’t think so. Therefore we must learn WHAT cancer is and how it behaves and why natural diet, oxygen etc should be so beneficial.
As for your comment of “thrival”, I’ll give that some recognition when people are willing to eat, drink and live sensibly NORMALLY, not just when faced with a terminal disease.