According to the Physicians' Cancer Chemotherapy Drug Manual 2006, oncologists use over 100 different chemotherapeutic drugs. Cancer patients are told that every type of malignancy must be treated with a specific drug, approved by the FDA for that specific cancer. This practice creates the impression of scientifically valid and effective chemotherapeutic treatment protocols. Unfortunately, the impression is an illusion. The bottom line in cancer therapy is survival. The national and international cancer statistics show such a dismal picture that the cancer establishment is extremely reluctant to make the figures available to the public. A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. His conclusion, from his article, published in LANCET: Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland. Oncologist. John Robbins M.D. “Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved (in the long term) by chemotherapy - 3%" Wikipedia: "Harmful and lethal toxicity from chemotherapy limits the dosage of chemotherapy that can be given. Many tumours - even chemo-resistant tumours - can be destroyed by sufficiently high doses of chemotheraputic agents. Unfortunately, these high doses can not be given because they'd kill the patient." Integrative/holistic medicine's approach to cancer treatment is quite different. Cancer cells share certain characteristics that are ignored by allopathic oncology. Their mustard gas-based approach only recognizes the method of indiscriminate cell killing, both cancerous and healthy. Writes Dr. Ross Hauser, MD: Oncologists in actuality are high-dose chemotherapy experts. They should be called chemotherapists, not oncologists. ‘Oncologist’ comes from the Greek word oncos, which means mass or tumor. By definition, an oncologist is supposed to be an expert in cancer, and by inference, cancer physiology. It is my contention that because oncologists do not try to reverse cancer physiology while treating someone they are not experts in cancer physiology and should not be called oncologists. Have your medical doctor or oncologist ever mention to you that cancer has a fungal nature? That it has a fermentation-based metabolism that feeds on sugar? That your diet and life-style may play a major role in whether there will be a recurrence after treatment? One reason why they did not discuss these points with you is that they know virtually nothing about them. Another reason is that with their throw-in-the-grenades strategy, it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Integrative medicine does recognize the need for a specific treatment for a specific cancer, when it is called for. To successfully treat leukemia, the medication must be capable to penetrate bones, and reach the bone marrow. In case of brain tumors, the treatment must pass the blood/brain barrier. Not all substances are able to do that. However, generally speaking, integrative/holistic oncology doesn't need a hundred different substances to treat cancer. The protocols - and their combinations - listed on this web site are perfectly sufficient to treat all cancers. This is why you will not find on this web site separate reports for the many different cancer types. Recently, a patient has been treated with the same integrative therapy for three very different cancer conditions: melanoma, prostate cancer and brain tumor. The patient is in complete remission. He didn't need three different drugs. If you are ever told by an allopathic cancer specialist that treating different cancer patients with the same substance is quackery, look at their statistics, then look at the results of integrative medicine, and ask yourself, just who are the quacks? From a Public Health discussion forum: allendo 01-22-2005, 09:04 AM I'm interested in Oncology and was wondering if anyone had any opinions, advice so on.... Know anyone in Onc fellow right now? Avg workweek, is it depressing or encouraging? Are people still interested in the specialty? andreg 01-22-2005, 12:30 PM I'm interested in Oncology GOOD FOR YA.. Avg workweek 60 HOURS is it depressing EXTREMELY, 75% DIE IN YOUR HANDS encouraging? BUT OF COURSE, YOU MAKE $300,000 MIN, BUY A NICE RED FERRARI OR PORSCHE ... IF THAT IS NOT ENCOURAGING, WHAT IS?? Are people still interested in the specialty? BUT OF COURSE, JUST LOOK AT THE $$$$$, HENCE IT IS THE #3 COMPETITIVE :))) .....HOME