Healing Versus Curing

Source: https://glennsabin.com/cancer-healing-versus-curing/

The oncology community considers a patient cured after no sign of disease for five years after achieving a complete remission. It’s an arbitrary number since several types of cancers can return after 5, 10 or even 20 years.

I don’t have much use for the term ‘cure’. To me it’s a meaningless descriptor, full of caveats.

Healing, however, is a responsible term with a progressive definition. I believe that some level of healing is possible for every cancer patient.

Currently there are over 14 million cancer survivors in the U.S. alone. Some are in remission and many live full lives with cancer as a treatable, manageable chronic disease.  While active cancer treatment can be debilitating, with numerous harmful side effects, many patients at different stages of care and recovery can create an environment conducive to healing.  

Healing Takes Many Forms

Many think of cancer healing as the recovery process from invasive interventions such as surgery, radiation or chemotherapy.  It’s a common mindset of ‘I’ll endure the conventional treatment then heal from it’. While that’s certainly a true form of physical healing, there are numerous ways in which healing takes place. 

A 360 degree approach to cancer healing—one that comprehensively provides an environment in which true healing can occur—ought to be the overarching goal for those that provide and receive cancer care.

Of the many paths to healing, quality of life with emphasis on positive relationships is crucial. Regular physical activity, tailored to a patient’s condition, ability and interest can greatly affect one’s ability to heal at all levels. Nutritious meals, sufficient hydration, stress-reducing exercise and activities, and restorative sleep, are essential combinations for healing mind, body and spirit.

With the help of their friends, families, and caregivers, patients can participate in healing activities that may include journaling, listening to music, nature walks, and regularly spending time with family and friends. Even interaction with pets can be powerfully therapeutic for those who are animal lovers. 

Psycho-oncology, Stress Reduction and Living in the Present

Many cancer survivors will find solace working with psychotherapists and psychologists trained in oncology patient care. This can help patients gain and develop specific tools with which to deal with the uncertainty of a cancer diagnosis and the continuum of care along the journey into survivorship.

Notably, mind-body stress reduction therapies, under the guidance of a qualified practitioner, promote ‘living fully in the present’, where deep healing can occur.

Equally important is resolution within relationships. Addressing longstanding interpersonal issues can result in a healthier and more ‘settled’ mind; a tremendous healing benefit.

In summary, most qualitative lifestyle enhancing therapies, applied synergistically, can create a less toxic physical and emotional environment. Less toxicity equals a stronger base from which to deal with the challenge of underlying disease. 

While not everyone can be cured, we can all, at some level, be healed.

Modern science only identifies active disease once there are enough cancer cells to be picked up in a CT or PET scan, a blood test or, in my case, a bone marrow biopsy.  However, cancer stem cells are immortal; they can divide forever.

I go about my life as if micro-metastatic disease still exists. But of emphasis: this is not a fatalistic approach. We all have cancer cells in our bodies—it’s the job of our immune system to kill cancer cells around the clock. I endeavor to keep my system perpetually supercharged by closely adhering to my integrative health regimen.

Cure is an outmoded, useless word to describe disease-free survivors.  This is why I do not use the ‘cure’ word when describing my personal course with an ‘incurable’ cancer and the remarkable outcomes I have achieved with only natural approaches. It is not because I am afraid to tempt fate; it is based upon my intimate experiences with and understanding of healing.

I experience healing every day. Restorative therapies are available to us all. It’s time to reframe our thoughts and focus our actions.



New Cancer Drugs — Beware!!!

Source: http://cancerworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CW81_Cover_Story.pdf

Should regulators insist on robust evidence that a new drug shows clear benefit to patients as a condition of approval, or are demands for such levels of certainty unrealistic, or even unethical? Marc Beishon reports.

  • two studies from the US and Europe that show that a majority of drugs enter the market without showing Overall Survival or Quality of Life, and only about 15% of these have since done so. The majority of cancer drugs enter the market without showing evidence of benefit on overall survival or quality of life.
  • Other studies have shown no relationship between price and clinical benefit of FDA-approved drugs.
  • There are just not many new cancer drugs that qualify as real game changers, particularly for solid tumours, although some are certainly huge money spinners for the pharmaceutical companies, owing to eye-watering price-tags.
  • A recent and “ridiculous” example, he says, is FDA approval for using adjuvant sunitinib for renal cancer. “Of the two trials, a larger one of 2,000 or so patients was totally negative, and a smaller one of 600 was only positive for progression-free survival but not for overall survival, and it has substantial toxicity.” 
  • “We do have some great new drugs,” says Tannock. “But I am concerned for patients who have little idea how to judge which ones are effective and end up selling everything to get them.” 
  • He argues that the progression-free survival (PFS) findings from trials may be biased, citing the BOLERO-2 trial, which showed that adding everolimus … to exemestane, doubled PFS in patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer. “But toxicity was such that 25% of patients left the trial – and while the PFS was impressive, longer-term survival was negative. 
  • If you have an agent that improves PFS with minimal toxicity, such as aromatase inhibitors, that’s fine, but for those with high toxicity such as everolimus or sunitinib it is misguided to approve them.”



Starbucks must add cancer warning to coffee, says US court





Bad news, coffee drinkers: A California judge has ruled that coffee companies across the state will have to carry a cancer warning label because of a carcinogen that is present in the brewed beverage.

Starbucks Corp and other coffee sellers must put a cancer warning on coffee sold in California, a Los Angeles judge has ruled, possibly exposing the companies to millions of dollars in fines.

A little-known not-for-profit group sued some 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law requiring companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.

One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee.


Prostate screening saves no lives and may do more harm than good




Screening for prostate cancer does not save lives, and may do more harm than good, a major study has concluded.

The largest ever trial of PSA (prostate specific antigen) tests – which all men over 50 can obtain on request from their GP – found that death rates were identical among men, whether or not they underwent screening.

Inviting symptomless men for the one-off blood test detects some tumours unlikely to be harmful – while still missing others that were fatal, researchers warned.

PSA tests do not save lives, but they do generate enormous revenues for cancer treatment clinics

The researchers studied 400,000 British men between the ages of 50 and 69 during a ten year follow-up period. The control group, representing 219,439 men, were not screened and had 7,853 cases of prostate cancer (3.6 percent). The 189,386 men who were invited for a PSA test were diagnosed more frequently (4.3 percent). In the follow up period, the same percentage died from prostate cancer (.29 percent), suggesting that PSA screening does not save lives and only leads to dangerous over-treatment.

Lead author Professor Richard Martin, a Cancer Research U.K. scientist at the University of Bristol said, “We found offering a single PSA test to men with no symptoms of prostate cancer does not save lives after an average follow up of 10 years.”





The Truth About Chemotherapy — truth that your doctors would not tell you!

The dark truth of the chemotherapy industry nobody knows about.


Medical BOMBSHELL: Chemotherapy found to spread cancer


All Government-Funded Science is FAKE SCIENCE!