Alternative cancer cures.
These so called cures have been around with us for as long as science based cancer treatments have been around with us. Infact some of them have been around even longer than that.
These so called cures, while different, also have many things in common, which I have narrowed down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about alternative cancer cures:
5. There's a lot of them.
One of the biggest things that I've noticed about alternative cancer cures is that there are a lot of different types of "cures" floating around the internet and alternative medicine communities, and that there seems to be a new one that comes out every few weeks.
I've seen claims that balancing your ph levels, vitamins, organic foods, "detoxing" your body of chemicals, breathing in pure oxygen, and soursop can cure cancer, and in ways and speeds that would make conventional treatments obsolete.
The most recent claims I've seen concern cannabis oil. Along with doing all sorts of other stuff, the rumors spreading around the internet is that either cannabis oil can cure or atleast stop the growth of cancer cells.
While there are a lot of different alternative medical treatments that are claimed to cure cancer, there are a few things that they all have in common, such as the fact that...
4. Many of the claims are exaggerated and dubious.
Of all the alternative cancer cures that I have seen floating around the internet they all just sound blatantly exaggerated, and when I do some research into these claims I find out that they are often times full of half truths, or are outright false. Examples of this would be Soursop which is claimed to be 10,000 times more effective than chemo (both exaggerated and false), and vitamins are often claimed to kill cancer cells because it can kill them in a petri dish (that doesn't mean it can kill them in the human body).
Many people who promote these so called alternative cancer cures also claim that there is a "conspiracy" by "big pharma" to suppress these so called "cures" (which they have done a terrible job at) and is the reason why doctors won't even mention these alternative "cures". This is ofcourse made up nonsense and BS conspiracy theories. The real reason why doctors don't recommend alternative cancer cures is because...
3. They don't work and are dangerous.
As the old saying goes "You know what they call an alternative medicine that works? Medicine."
The fact is that these so called alternative cancer cures don't work. They have been tested in scientific laboratories, and have been shown not to work and do nothing to reduce or stop the spread of cancer cells. The only thing that has been shown when a person purely uses alternative cancer cures is that a person will die of cancer just as fast as if they had used no cancer treatments at all. This is why no legitimate medical doctor would ever recommend any alternative cancer cures.
Worst yet is that some of these cancer cures are actually harmful. Soursop for instance has neurotoxins in it that can cause a person to develop symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease, and cansema, another so called alternative cancer cure is corrosive and destroys your skin. There are also many different herbs that are floating around that are said to cure cancer, but in reality are poisonous and can kill you.
Ofcourse no one who believes that alternative cancer cures work would know this, nor would some of them really care primarily due to the "statistics" that the profiteers... I mean promoters of alternative cancer cures often times use. And speaking of those statistics...
2. The statistics alternative cancer cure promoters use are exaggerated and flawed.
Many times accompanying articles about alternative cancer cures (especially on websites that promote these "cures") and are some kind of statistics and information about how many people have been cured of cancer by taking whatever it is they are promoting. What many of these so called statistics and information may or may not tell you is how many of those people were using conventional cancer treatments during, or before, or after they took the alternative cancer cures. To most people this would create a cross contamination in the data as it could be argued that it is just as likely (much more likely actually) that the conventional cancer treatments are what cured a person of cancer and not the alternative cancer treatments.
Now when you remove all the people who admit they used conventional cancer treatments and only include those that claim to have purely used alternative cancer cures, the number of people who believe that they successfully rid themselves of cancer is shockingly small, and can be explained as either the body healing itself (it's rare, but it does happen) or the person was given a false diagnosis (which is why a second diagnosis is always needed after a first positive diagnosis is made inorder to confirm if a person has cancer), or that some of the people questioned could be outright lying and actually did have conventional cancer treatments, or have never been diagnosed with cancer, they just claimed they had it.
What these statistics do not tell you is how many people actually died while using these alternative cancer cures, either indirectly as a result of foregoing conventional cancer treatments, or directly as a result of being poisoned by some of these "cures".
Also another thing that the promoters of alternative cancer cures tend to do...
1. The promoters of alternative cancer cures love to talk about the negatives of conventional cancer treatments, but never the positives.
As a way to help promote alternative cancer cures the promoters of these so called cures love to talk about all of the bad stuff about conventional cancer cures, primarily how harsh some of it can be, and how expensive it can be, and that sometimes conventional treatments do not work. While this is true it's still fear mongering that's done inorder to scare people into foregoing conventional cancer treatments and use the alternative ones.
What's almost never mentioned is how conventional cancer treatments have consistently increased the life expectancy and survivability of people who were diagnosed with cancer for over the past 50 years, and that there are new treatments for cancer that are based off of science based research that are coming out all the time. Infact I know a person who recently was completely cured of a type of cancer that ten years would have meant a death sentence, and this is all thanks to science based medicine. His story is just one of millions of examples of how science based cancer treatments have prolonged peoples lives, or rid people of cancer!
Ofcourse you'll never hear that from a person whom promotes the non-science based "cures".