What are your alternatives with cancer treatments? Are additional options with cancer treatments available? I read an article about cancer alternatives titled “Curing cancer: Nobel laureate Hershko on whether it’s possible.” Does that title interest you? Are you searching for alternative cancer treatments, or additional options as adjunct cancer care?
Alternatives with cancer treatments
The problem with alternatives combined with cancer treatment is it’s hard to find a licensed professional to help you walk that road. Yet, if you want to walk that road, it is necessary to have thoughtful, professional help. Alternative treatment like that is difficult to find because doctors who don’t treat cancer have fear to go there. In your search for alternatives with cancer treatment, first you have to find one of those alternative cancer articles somewhere. Then, you have to try to track down a practitioner who can give additional options about beating cancer. However, that practitioner can’t tell you he treats cancer. He can’t say that he has an alternative cancer treatment, because it is not, and it does not replace cancer treatment.
I hope my commentary about the Dr. Hershko article is helpful for you (excerpts from the article are in italics, below).
“There are thousands of different kinds of cancer, and just one kind, breast cancer, can be triggered by 15 different causes,” Hershko said.
You can easily misunderstand the above text when it is out of context. In such an article about “curing cancer,” it is difficult for the reporter to get all the useful details into the article. I’ll discuss this below, but first I wanted to discuss a brief meeting I had in 2012.
Cancer researcher’s perspective
In 2012, I met with a top cancer researcher and here’s what I learned. Professor Yoav Henis was in Los Angeles on behalf of the Israel Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) (Dr Hershko is also an ICRF researcher).
I got a chance to ask Professor Henis a few questions after his presentation. He is brilliant, and it was a unique opportunity for me to speak directly with a primary cancer researcher. He studies the mechanism of cancer neo-genesis; how cancer first develops.
I said when I discuss cancer with my patients, I say it needs more than one thing “out-of place” before it can manifest. I say it’s like a combination lock that has three numbers. Two are not enough to open it, and the combination has to be in the correct order. His reply was “exactly.” And he continued: “but in humans the minimum number would be 4 things. Mice can have 3 [things “out of place” for cancer to develop], but in humans it must be a minimum of 4.”
That’s an important, clarifying, and insight-producing statement. So, now, reviewing the Dr. Hershko interview article, I understand what was missing from the reporter’s words. My addition in bold, follows, after the quote:
“Breast cancer can be triggered by 15 different causes,” but there must be at least 4 destructive factors present before cancer gets triggered.
Four simultaneous destructive factors
Do you understand this critical point? For a cell to become cancerous, there must be at least 4 destructive factors present. The last one is the trigger. This is HUGE! Those 4 things could be irritation from toxic load, inflammation, hypoxia, and another factor like malnutrition. In the Dr. Hershko article, he didn’t say breast cancer has 15 “causes,” he said it “can be triggered.” There’s a difference. A destructive condition must be present first. Three other factors would still have to be present for any additional trigger to manifest as cancer.
90% of Americans believe cancer is caused by cancer genes (1) when, in fact, only 3-5% of cancers are considered “strongly hereditary” (2)
Additions to cancer treatment
Taking my conversation with Professor Henis further, I asked: if I were able to therapeutically decrease the toxic load of a patient through clinical nutrition, and if the toxic load were one of those 4 factors necessary for cancer to exist, would I potentially be helping the patient with cancer?
His answer: “Absolutely.”
To hear this straight from a top cancer researcher was inspiring to me. I see this as a true message of hope. Do you get my point? Maybe we don’t necessarily have to “cure,” or “kill” cancer. I will address this concept, below.
It was an honor to speak with Dr. Henis. I am thankful for the ICRF to have brought Professor Henis, of Tel-Aviv University, to Los Angeles in 2012.
Back to my commentary on the original article:
Hershko is quite skeptical of claims and expectations of a “cure” for cancer. To achieve that, he says, “We must remove every cancer cell in a patient’s body. If only one remains, it can grow and proliferate again.”
This is not what you think. This “one cancer cell” concept is always interpreted the wrong way, so let’s take this apart.
The cancer-producing body
When a reporter interviews a researcher, like Dr. Hershko, you may end-up with the reporter’s level of understanding. The “one cancer cell” concept is perceived as one cell producing cancer proliferation. No, that is a misinterpretation. That concept only applies for a strictly theoretical case requiring an already cancer-producing body. It’s when a body is still primed to be cancer-producing. All the necessary destructive factors for cancer (all 4 of them) would still have to be present, without any improvement. So, the presence of one cell would not cause cancer unless all the destructive factors for cancer were still present.
So now, the question is: can we deconstruct any of those destructive factors enough to no longer be cancer-producing?
Deconstructing cancer
By reestablishing better function in 1 of the 4 destructive factors, the body may have the potential to become tumor-free. One cancer cell wouldn’t matter if the body could neutralize that cell by its own regulatory systems (a drug-free process). Do you get it? All we might have to do is deconstruct one pillar necessary for cancer to exist, and it could come crumbling down.
The idea of killing cancer cells is the paradigm that has kept us decades behind in progress for cancer treatment. It is a 50 year old paradigm that might not work, except for a few cancers like childhood leukemia. For that, reaching remission is at least a 50/50 chance.
Additional options with cancer treatments
Fifty years of failed cancer treatments show how the conventional goal to kill cancer (cancer treatment) has failed us. After all this time, maybe, we can finally see that cancer need only be taken apart; not killed. A metabolic therapy such as we are discussing, would be a supportive addition, or “adjunct,” not really an alternative cancer treatment.
In 1969, Hershko started his research on how the body cleanses itself of unneeded and malfunctioning proteins, but his work was largely ignored or dismissed for the next 10 years. “People just weren’t interested in my research; they didn’t realize how important it was,” he said.
Cleansing is one of the keys, and this goes hand-in-hand with the idea of deconstructing accumulated toxicity. So, Dr. Hershko is saying the same thing that I brought out earlier. Toxicity matters, and cleansing may be a path to a solution. Four destructive factors are necessary for a body to develop a tumor-producing-ability. If we never address even one of them, a “cure” for cancer is a fallacy.
So, if a detoxifying pathway in your body were compromised to some degree, it must be professionally addressed. When you follow the right professional support, you take a huge step toward deconstructing cancer. We’re trying to help your body to do the job.
This is great news! It says we can take apart the mechanisms that put cancer together in the first place. Did you get that? It is not cancer treatment, since we’re not killing cancer cells. An integrative, adjunct cancer plan has the potential to help you, without huge expenses and without powerful drugs. This is hope!
Reaching remission is not a do-it- yourself project
There are alternative-thinking doctors who can see the bigger picture of your health. I’m one of them, and I’m bold enough to tell you. Adjunct cancer support requires skilled professional assistance. Do-it-yourself protocols are never insightful enough, or comprehensive enough for alternative cancer treatment options. Never!
Adjunct care is a type of complementary care, to support better healing and recovery, and potentially help you reach remission. The goal is reaching remission, not killing cancer cells. Could this model of care be an answer to your prayers for speedy recovery?
Is this sensible to you? Contact us today (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills). But remember, let’s be exceedingly clear: adjunct cancer support is not for killing cancer cells. It is not a “substitute,” alternative cancer treatment. There is little or no published research on this method. It does not use any harmful substances and it is not a cure. It is also not passive care, so it requires your effort to follow my directions.
Let’s get started! Make your appointment, below.
References:
1. American Institute for Cancer Research 24 Dec 2010
2. American Cancer Society: Global Cancer Facts & Figures 2013