<< previous pageThere are many combinations of these approaches that have produced exceptional remissions and some of these have been documented in books. However, each of these combinations has also produced failures. It would appear that successes happen when an individual makes a conscious and committed choice to follow a combination that they feel is right for them, whereas the failures are those who use a combination out of desperation for remission knowing that it has worked for someone else. This might indicate that even the dietary approaches have some element of mental effect connected to them.
The range of choice obviously creates problems for patients who have rarely been offered choices in medical treatment, but the sooner they are given options, the better, because they can always change.
Centres in America and Germany, where most of the experience of these approaches originates, are convinced that the earlier a patient introduces complementary approaches to their treatment regime, the greater the possibility of remission. Certainly it is not very helpful, as so often happens in this country, when a patient seeks help from us, "because the doctor says there is nothing more he can do".
With the holistic approach the relationship between patient, practitioner and belief in or acceptance of the treatment, is also an integral part of the work. The experience of one American surgeon, Bernie Siegel MD, recounted in his book "Love, Medicine and Miracles" should be enough to interest all but the tightest of closed minds in the possibilities of this.
Fear can materially affect the course of any treatment and the removal of fear by a practitioner will improve the recovery of the patient and the effectiveness of the treatment. We have found that patients on chemotherapy and radiotherapy can reduce, or avoid, all side effects by eliminating their fear and visualising their treatment in positive ways, for example imagining themselves to be on a sunny beach when undergoing radiotherapy. One centre is having great success in getting terminal patients to reduce or eliminate morphine doses by reducing their fear of death.
Many of the ideas that we advocate are beginning to work their way into the medical world. Some of the groups using these methods are located in National Health Service practices, others are overseen by consultants and physicians and over fifty physicians are on our register of practitioners.
The main criticisms from the medical profession are threefold: that diet and nutritional supplementation, whilst helping to prevent the onset of cancer, cannot help its regressions: that there is a possibility of patients being given "false hope": that the evidence for the holistic approach is not scientifically proven. To the first of these we would say - look at the research evidence throughout the world with unbiased eyes. Read "Vitamins and Minerals in Cancer" edited by Prasad and Meyskens and published by Humana Press, New Jersey. There is ample evidence that vegetarians are less cancer prone, so surely a vegetarian diet for cancer patients will do them less harm. Recent work at Harvard Medical School has shown that protease inhibitors, a constituent of many vegetables actively regress tumours.
As for giving "false hope" we would suggest that no one lives without hope, and that false hope is only based on false information. We believe in giving patients the information and support that they ask for. Encouraging them to realise that the only certainty in life is our mortality and that quality of life is of the greatest importance. This has to be better than the fixed terms that so many people are given by their medical advisers.
Finally, the lack of scientific evidence. This requires a whole new approach from the medical profession, as it places the proponents of our ideas in a Catch 22 situation. For research to be scientifically acceptable, the variables must be reduced to a minimum, preferably only one and the human mind must not be a factor. Under these rules our case becomes impossible. We can only say that time will tell, but is it fair to all those people who will contract cancer meanwhile to be denied this aspect of treatment if they wish to participate. Nor is it a fair trial of the system for an unconvinced, or unenthusiastic practitioner to suggest that a patient "might like to try this" with the inflection that it won't work.
The negative message that more and more people will die of cancer is totally counter productive. We aim to get people to realise that a high percentage of cancer is preventable and that those unfortunate enough to contract it will do themselves no harm through positive self help.
Of course, it is unlikely that all cancer will ever be prevented, but by paying attention to all of the aspects previously discussed, a very high proportion could be avoided or ameliorated.