Prevention, treatment and integration - An Update On Cancer

New Life Journal, Oct-Nov, 2002 by Salvatore D'Angio

Few illnesses create as much concern and anxiety as the diagnosis of cancer, and few diseases can benefit as greatly from an approach using the most sophisticated technologies of modern medicine together with the best of natural and complementary medicines. Conventional medical therapies, even under the best expectation of outcome, can have devastating and destructive effects on a person, frequently to the extent of being life-threatening in and of themselves. While natural therapies, which are fairly well-tolerated and frequently life-enhancing, can be somewhat unpredictable in the response the person receives.

The Impact of Cancer

Cancer is a significant illness in our society. The lifetime chance of developing cancer is now about 44% for men and 38% for women. Overall, though, the incidence of cancer and dying from cancer has been going down about 1.1% each year over the past ten years. This speaks of progress but is most likely due mainly to slightly less cigarette use and the resultant impact on lung cancer, showing how greatly our efforts to take care of ourselves has an impact. Cancer is also a normal part of life gone out of balance. Cancer cells are mostly normal functionally and genetically. Each of us produces several thousand cancer cells per day which our immune system normally recognizes, repairs (in the case of some types of mutations), or destroys. We have the inherent ability to heal cancer within us and within our society. But how do we get the healing done?

The Role of Science

In many ways, various tools of modern medicine have been our ally in the challenge of understanding cancer in our society. Beyond the unfortunate political agendas of some organizations and corporations, the evaluative and research efforts of well-intended investigators have been able to demonstrate the links between diet, quality of our food sources, environmental exposures, and their strong relationship to developing cancer. For one example, the scientific literature keeps showing that foods high in antioxidants--primarily dark green vegetables and brightly colored vegetables and fruits--consistently impart a beneficial effect in decreasing the risk of cancer.

At the same time, studies are not demonstrating as clear a relationship between supplementing with anti-oxidants in isolated form and prevention of cancer, probably due to missing aspects of the whole food or varying responses to megadoses of various supplements. In another aspect of cancer risk, the recent controversy over allowable levels of Arsenic in drinking water (50 ppb vs. 10 ppb) was answered by clear scientific evidence of the risk of multiple forms of cancer from exposure, resulting in a reversal of the current administration's political position.

As well, these same statistical tools are finally being applied to natural and alternative strategies to treat cancer so we can start to take advantage of the best that herbal, nutritional and mind/body strategies have to offer in the healing process. It is clear now that conventional and non-conventional approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are many examples of individuals with cancer who have survived and thrived by taking advantage of strategies from both sides of the fence, so to speak. The scientific literature is starting to support this as well. More studies are demonstrating that, in contrast to the general beliefs of most cancer doctors, anti-oxidant vitamins and supplements can be supportive to the patient receiving chemotherapy and radiation therapy and may actually improve outcome, both in terms of decreased ide effects and enhanced impact on the destruction of cancer cells. There are some clear exceptions to this. For example, several types of cancer agents rely on oxidation to have their tumor reducing effect; bioflavonoids can negatively impact on the effectiveness of Tamoxifen; Selenium above a certain range can interfere with radiation therapy. But there is something deeper occurring with the healing of patients using more natural or supportive therapies which requires detailed investigation. More and more examples of patients with clearly better than expected outcomes are generating significant interest by the National Cancer Institute and NIH's Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to look more closely at the best case scenarios of a variety of alternative practitioners who have worked successfully with cancer patients--most notably; Dr. Gonzalez's work with pancreatic cancer patients and Dr. Bryzynski's work with neoplastons.

As well, the trend is changing in the research community. There is now a greater attempt to study these alternative approaches as the original practitioners designed them to be followed instead of fitting the approach into a conventional research model and missing the unique key's to a successful outcome by that practitioner. In conventional research, usually a method will be analyzed, taken apart and studied in pieces to assess the effectiveness. As with whole foods, if you tear them apart for what seems to be most important by our current understanding, you can miss the effect of the whole. This is one reason many alternative protocols are so strict. The reason it works may not be completely understood and to alter a piece can have unpredictable results.