Cured whith holistic approach

Olle said:

Hi Peter

Big thanks for the info, I will explore this....

Sorry for your lost!!!

I hope that in near fututure it can be proven that holisitc way to heal is as effective as traditional treatments....if its the true its the biggest scandal in 50 year! Based on that most people use the traditonal way becouse they do not get the holisitic approach as an option......even its clear that the diet is the key reason to cancer.

Thank you, Olle.   

The term "hollistic" carries  lot of baggage apparently.   I'm not sure what is meant by it except to go beyond just standard therapy which targets the cancer and to consider the entire body, and mind.   By providing the list above, which is not complete by any means, I am not suggesting you turn your back on standard therapy.  I encountered a friend last year who went the route, after being diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, of doing things I considered fringe, or at best third level add ons and did no standard therapy.    Her cancer took off exponentially and killed here within a year because she was not being tracked closely and advised by an oncologist or even a regular physician.    There are cases of turning down all convential options and using alternate therapies but It's not clear that they are not just flukes.

In any case, I have become convinced, by evidence, that there are many things you can add to standard therapy, which sometimes may allow lower doses of chemo or radiation or dampen symtoms and side effects, or slow tumor growth or even cause tumor regression.  An I've been convince by the work of researchers and a small, but growing, number of oncologists who employ some of these techniques to good effect. 

For example, some of the fasting reasearch is being done by Prof Valter Longo of USC has garnered enough evidence that clinical trials are increasing in numbers and sizes, and going beyond cancer to other diseases like multiple sclerosis.  There are biological mechansim which explain why certain kinds of limited fasting may work in some case.  The work of Prof. Thomas Seyfried of Boston University, who studies the metabolism of cancer, is being adopted more as time goes on, with variations of his press-pulse  technique being used by a number of US oncologists. 

Siddhartha Mukherjee, a famous British oncologist, who is well known for his book (and later TV series) "The Emperor of All Maladies"  recently stated that metabolic therapies are worth exploring in more detail (I believe trials are planned, and that it makes biological sense that diet affects the way in which tumor grow and progress and that is not all about the genetics of the tumor.   I know this is an appeal to authority in some sense, but there is basic research to back up his claim.

From the list in my prior post, there is Dawn Lemanne and Colin Champ, both practicing oncologists.  If you watch their lectures they will explain the studies which have convinced them that dietary measures are important additions to the standard care that they offer.

Brent Reynolds runs the Reynolds Lab at the University of Florida and has screened hundreds of natural substances for their effects on cancer.   First by literature review (scientific literature, not magazine artilcles), and from that derived a list of possible candidates.   Lab studies, using mice or rates I believe, then showed good effect from a combination of EGCG ( in green tea) , Sulforapahne (in brocollie sprouts), and curcumin (in tumeric).   This is why I suggested you listen to one of his talks.  Or look up his paper on the subject.   I believe MD Anderson has done studies on Curcumin and mushrooms.   I did not add mushrooms to my list but suggest you look at the literature on them especially with respect to immune system enhancement.  

Walnuts was added because of news from Yale recently which showed positive results for Stage III colon cancer patients when they consumed small amounts of walnuts.  Another simple healthy add on.   

So, what I'm saying is that there is good information, maybe not conclusive in some cases, about additional NON-TOXIC things you can do to increase your odds.   I am adamently opposed to anyone who suggests you just go along with standard therpay and forget anything else.  Standard therapy can help, and is a life savor for some.   But for others it's a complete failure as evidence by the 160,000 cancer deaths per year in the US. A number which is not declining.  Be discriminating and critical of any option though.  If you have the luxury of time educate yourself about what each element of standard care will do for you, and the evidence behnd these elements, and educate yourself about the ongong research about other things you can do.  If there is not a plausble biological mechanism which can exlpain how some option works I would be very skeptical.  Skepticism and evidence are your friends.

Good luck.

Olle said:

Stemcells therapy

Is there anyone that have try stem cell therapy ?

 

/Olle

Hej Olle

I think stem-cell therapy is still in an early phase, but some promising responses has been obtained as noted in this article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292674/

Regards, Bjorn (Oslo/Norge)