Would you use Beljanski's Cancer Protocol?

[FictionLover]

My answer is maybe. It all depends on if I know they will work. I'm chronically ill and always being offered stuff like this, and I can tell you, none of them work. So I take all this with a grain of salt.

Same, that is why statistics and more research is important before claiming that it is effective. In a way, I also take this with a grain of salt, as you cleverly put it, because sometimes the claims are not effective to all people but they still promote it in general. We need specifics and a guarantee that it will have an effect on each individual; otherwise, it just gives false hope. I understand where you are coming from.

Have you read the whole book? In it Sylvie states that it was researched in France, and there was more research done at Columbia University in NYC (that is where I am in the book). Most of the research was written in French, which I don't speak, so it would have to be translated for me to understand.

As to your statement that not all treatments are good for everyone, that is true. No one medical treatment works the same way on everyone. This includes cold remedies, vaccinations, chemotherapy, herbal supplements and anything else out there. There are never any guarantees in medicine, which is her point in the beginning of the book.

Chemotherapy can kill you before your cancer does, but the doctor that gives it to you will never be charged with malpractice because it is the "Standard of Care". I know I will stay away from that if ever the case arises. I would rather go with "unproven" and live a little longer.

[briellejee]

My answer is maybe. It all depends on if I know they will work. I'm chronically ill and always being offered stuff like this, and I can tell you, none of them work. So I take all this with a grain of salt.

Same, that is why statistics and more research is important before claiming that it is effective. In a way, I also take this with a grain of salt, as you cleverly put it, because sometimes the claims are not effective to all people but they still promote it in general. We need specifics and a guarantee that it will have an effect on each individual; otherwise, it just gives false hope. I understand where you are coming from.

Have you read the whole book? In it Sylvie states that it was researched in France, and there was more research done at Columbia University in NYC (that is where I am in the book). Most of the research was written in French, which I don't speak, so it would have to be translated for me to understand.

As to your statement that not all treatments are good for everyone, that is true. No one medical treatment works the same way on everyone. This includes cold remedies, vaccinations, chemotherapy, herbal supplements and anything else out there. There are never any guarantees in medicine, which is her point in the beginning of the book.

Chemotherapy can kill you before your cancer does, but the doctor that gives it to you will never be charged with malpractice because it is the "Standard of Care". I know I will stay away from that if ever the case arises. I would rather go with "unproven" and live a little longer.

Yes, I know there is a lot of research studies she had mentioned. There are also other research papers that back up her statements. However, research papers are not always enough to be considered as statistics. I have been in the field and one can call it a research paper even though it is still not yet 100% proven. Most papers will have a result but it is not yet enough, or research papers could have done the first step and needs a lot more to hold their claims in effectivity. I do believe the credibility of the author's work. I'm just saying the statistic is not high enough, also considering that no medical treatment works the same way on everyone because of the lack of specificity of the method. Still, it is up to someone whether they will take this as a method. I have seen people who survived cancer by chemotherapy so I couldn't say yet that it is not as effective as you claim it is. But then again, that also falls to the point that not all people will receive the same result regarding medications.

[FictionLover]

Same, that is why statistics and more research is important before claiming that it is effective. In a way, I also take this with a grain of salt, as you cleverly put it, because sometimes the claims are not effective to all people but they still promote it in general. We need specifics and a guarantee that it will have an effect on each individual; otherwise, it just gives false hope. I understand where you are coming from.

Have you read the whole book? In it Sylvie states that it was researched in France, and there was more research done at Columbia University in NYC (that is where I am in the book). Most of the research was written in French, which I don't speak, so it would have to be translated for me to understand.

As to your statement that not all treatments are good for everyone, that is true. No one medical treatment works the same way on everyone. This includes cold remedies, vaccinations, chemotherapy, herbal supplements and anything else out there. There are never any guarantees in medicine, which is her point in the beginning of the book.

Chemotherapy can kill you before your cancer does, but the doctor that gives it to you will never be charged with malpractice because it is the "Standard of Care". I know I will stay away from that if ever the case arises. I would rather go with "unproven" and live a little longer.

Yes, I know there is a lot of research studies she had mentioned. There are also other research papers that back up her statements. However, research papers are not always enough to be considered as statistics. I have been in the field and one can call it a research paper even though it is still not yet 100% proven. Most papers will have a result but it is not yet enough, or research papers could have done the first step and needs a lot more to hold their claims in effectivity. I do believe the credibility of the author's work. I'm just saying the statistic is not high enough, also considering that no medical treatment works the same way on everyone because of the lack of specificity of the method. Still, it is up to someone whether they will take this as a method. I have seen people who survived cancer by chemotherapy so I couldn't say yet that it is not as effective as you claim it is. But then again, that also falls to the point that not all people will receive the same result regarding medications.

Well, I'm not saying that chemotherapy can't be effective. I'm saying that it is highly toxic, and I would chose to take a treatment that is supportive of healing.

However, I am interested in your mention of statistics. Where would I find these statistics?

I do agree that as far as I have read, most of her claims are anecdotal as opposed to being derived from Clinical Trials. But I also know that clinical trials can be manipulated, and getting published in peer-reviewed journals has it's own set of political hoops to jump through.

I tend to believe in using diet and supplements to stay healthy, so this appeals to me.

[briellejee]

Have you read the whole book? In it Sylvie states that it was researched in France, and there was more research done at Columbia University in NYC (that is where I am in the book). Most of the research was written in French, which I don't speak, so it would have to be translated for me to understand.

As to your statement that not all treatments are good for everyone, that is true. No one medical treatment works the same way on everyone. This includes cold remedies, vaccinations, chemotherapy, herbal supplements and anything else out there. There are never any guarantees in medicine, which is her point in the beginning of the book.

Chemotherapy can kill you before your cancer does, but the doctor that gives it to you will never be charged with malpractice because it is the "Standard of Care". I know I will stay away from that if ever the case arises. I would rather go with "unproven" and live a little longer.

Yes, I know there is a lot of research studies she had mentioned. There are also other research papers that back up her statements. However, research papers are not always enough to be considered as statistics. I have been in the field and one can call it a research paper even though it is still not yet 100% proven. Most papers will have a result but it is not yet enough, or research papers could have done the first step and needs a lot more to hold their claims in effectivity. I do believe the credibility of the author's work. I'm just saying the statistic is not high enough, also considering that no medical treatment works the same way on everyone because of the lack of specificity of the method. Still, it is up to someone whether they will take this as a method. I have seen people who survived cancer by chemotherapy so I couldn't say yet that it is not as effective as you claim it is. But then again, that also falls to the point that not all people will receive the same result regarding medications.

Well, I'm not saying that chemotherapy can't be effective. I'm saying that it is highly toxic, and I would chose to take a treatment that is supportive of healing.

However, I am interested in your mention of statistics. Where would I find these statistics?

I do agree that as far as I have read, most of her claims are anecdotal as opposed to being derived from Clinical Trials. But I also know that clinical trials can be manipulated, and getting published in peer-reviewed journals has it's own set of political hoops to jump through.

I tend to believe in using diet and supplements to stay healthy, so this appeals to me.

It is indeed highly toxic since it destroys also your healthy cells. Chemotherapy hasn't been improved yet in which you will just target the cancer cells. It is hard enough. Speaking of healing, the body is indeed capable of healing itself. But in cancer, it will still depend on how far it has spread' in other words, how worse it already is.

The statistics are usually mentioned in the paper as part of the results; and if not in one paper, you will consider it as statistics if you combine papers that also used the same method and got the same results. Yes, I also agree that clinical trials can be manipulated because of the pressure to earn money and not go bankrupt. In the end, it will always be about money because otherwise, these scientists will have nothing to eat if they don't care about the money.

Diet and supplements can indeed help, but of course, one should couple it with exercise and the a balanced diet too in order to stay healthy.

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

Definitely, in my opinion, prevention's always best. However, I don't think you necessarily need to use any supplements unless you're in a high-risk situation. Living the healthiest lifestyle within your means, both physically and mentally is the best form of prevention, in my opinion.

[Louanne Piccolo]

To be honest, I don't know.
I am all for natural remedies as I really do believe in them and use them often. But, it's never been in a life and death situation and I just don't know what I would do in that type of situation.
It's a tough question to answer.

[FictionLover]

To be honest, I don't know.
I am all for natural remedies as I really do believe in them and use them often. But, it's never been in a life and death situation and I just don't know what I would do in that type of situation.
It's a tough question to answer.

Thanks for your response. Certainly, not all treatments work for all people.

[Louanne Piccolo]

The problem is that you just don't know what will work for sure, and if you choose the wrong treatment you may not get a second chance. So difficult!

[Nerea]

We all have varying immune system, so before using the recommended treatment in the book, it would be wise to consult the Cancer Specialist first before starting the treatment.

[FictionLover]

The problem is that you just don't know what will work for sure, and if you choose the wrong treatment you may not get a second chance. So difficult!

For me, I believe being forewarned is being forearmed. That is why I like reading about these therapies.

I have two book on my desk about Gerson Therapy which is used to treat cancer and is essentially a protocol using fresh juices and (if I remember right) a few supplements.

Suzanne Somers has written about her breast cancer and what treatment she used. She also has a book called Knockout where she interviews a list of doctors and their alternative cancer treatments.

With any of these treatments, you don't go it alone. You have a consult with a doctor and find out if his/her treatment is suitable for you.

The biggest problem is knowing where to find them, because once you get this kind of diagnosis, you will be frightened AND rushed into treatment.

[Louanne Piccolo]

True, but I'm really not sure where I'd fine a doctor who administers natural treatments to cancer.

[FictionLover]

True, but I'm really not sure where I'd fine a doctor who administers natural treatments to cancer.

I understand, I meant the doctors who are written about in the books I mentioned.

[briellejee]

We all have varying immune system, so before using the recommended treatment in the book, it would be wise to consult the Cancer Specialist first before starting the treatment.

I agree! It is not a guarantee that one drug would also be helpful to your case even though it worked on others.

[Cara Van Heerden]

If this can be used as preventive then maybe it could be added to vaccines? Because I donno if I'd purposefully hunt down these substances otherwise. Since I have no indication that I'm at risk of getting cancer.

[EricaWilson]

Everyone's body reacts to things differently, so you never know if something that wasn't effective for someone else may be effective for you. In my opinion, natural treatments like the ones discussed here would be worth a try!