In the mainstream and conventional medical systems, limited data exists on Alternative Oncology.
While the published scientific literature in Cancer Research Centers, Medical Schools and online have a fair amount of studies on palliative and adjunctive alternative oncology, not many published peer-reviewed studies on alternative oncology’s proven curative effects, including on the five-years survival rates. The ACR Institute however does collect as many of these published and unpublished findings and supports its holistic cancer reversal therapies with these studies. (Source)
On the other hand, just about all of Conventional Oncology’s experts are of the opinion that alteranative oncology is by definition either disproven or unproven and therefore classifies this medical system as quakery and pseudo-scientific. For example, the National Cancer Institute wrote about a 2017 Yale study that suggested that alternative oncology increases risks and death. (Source) But the definition of alternative therapy used by the Yale study’s database was restrictive in that it defined said therapy as any “unproven therapies from a nonmedical provider.” The study also stated that these therapies included approaches as diverse as “…herbs, botanicals, vitamins, minerals, traditional Chinese medicines, homeopathy, acupuncture, diets, mind–body techniques, or even intravenous infusions”. (Ibid)
These and other material facts suggest that this Government-promoting study is fatally flawed in terms of relevance. On the one hand, this study defined unproven cancer therapies as interventions practiced by nonmedical providers, and on the other, the Study’s scientists say that the relevant therapies in question are those that are usually provided by integrative and holistic medical providers, including Traditional Chinese Medicine. Another caveat is that the study looked only at patients who refused any type of conventional treatment after a cancer diagnosis, not at people who used alternative approaches alongside conventional treatments which is a more common scenario. Furthermore, the researchers could not tell if patients went on to receive conventional therapies after their cancer progressed, because only initial treatments were recorded in the database. And metastasic cancer patients, who account for 90 percent of cancer patients deaths, were not considered in this study.
The ACR Institute’s conclusion. This Government-promoted Yale study is irrelevant to the issue under consideration. I’ve seen no material facts let alone probative evidence that demonstrate this Yale study’s claim that that alternative oncology increases the Nation’s cancer death rate when it replaces Conventional oncology. (Materiality, along with probative value, is one of two characteristics that make a given item of evidence relevant). While there exists couple other studies that are similar in terms of bias and flaws, I have seen no compelling evidence corroborating said allegation on alternative oncology’s deleterious nature.
Subsidiarily, as of now and according to what I’ve seen, there is also no credible evidence that suggest that nationally, alternative oncology is responsible for the above-mentioned “War against Cancer” progress, let alone can we know if alternative oncology is clinically superior or inferior to conventional oncology. Unless we compare these two approachs in clinical trials. In the ACR Institute’s documentary on Holistic Oncology, we show limited evidence that intelligent and science-based holistic oncology is clinically superior to conventional oncology when we compare limited groups of integrative oncology patients with the Government’s NIH results. (See below).
To date, over 300 alternative cancer techniques have been recorded to have been used by cancer patients. While many of these alternative cancer therapies are have a placebo-nature, many others have been shown to be better than a placebo with regard to limited cancer control and symptomatology relief. But as stand-alones or when not used appropriately as primary or adjunctive therapies within an integrative and-or holistic framework, they can be detrimental in terms of depriving cancer patients from more efficient recourses to better control and reverse their cancer problem. (In medical malpractice law, this phenomenon is called a “loss of chance” cause of action).
For example, when just two or three of these short-term naturopathic techniques are used exclusively, their anti-cancer effects tend to be symptomatic and short-lived, meaning that dormant cancer stem cells eventually find a way to spring back into full metastatic action, including after the five year “remission” timeline. This was the case with the Young anti-cancer Protocol which prescribed baking soda, colonics, juicing and massage as the main cancer protocol. While these techniques are helpful in the short-term and with regard to palliative-based relief, by themselves they are insufficient to reverse malignancies. Not informing a cancer patient of this protocol’s limitation is violative of the Law and can subject health professionals to both criminal prosecution and burdensome liability (On this issue, see the Young case).
Website under construction