The Three True Reasons People Die of Cancer Today

There are constant dilemmas you face when fighting cancer, and they are all painfully difficult. From my experience, there are three basic reasons why people end up making the wrong choices when faced by challenging health dilemmas.

1. Ignorance.

As I mention in my bio, the first time I heard the word lymphoma I didn’t know that it was in fact a type of cancer. Actually, some oncologists are resistant to use the word cancer at all. Yes, your oncologist will be there to answer all your questions, but the point is that after you get diagnosed, you lose control precisely because you don’t have the right questions to ask. Patients just want to know if they will survive their cancer and what they can do to get rid of it, and doctors are not there to teach oncology, among other things because it is not their job. They are trained to apply what they know. So a static relationship is established between you and your doctor. It’s a robotic, mechanical connection that leads always to the same empty place: an uncontested approach to healing cancer that has been applied over and over for more than 60 years with the same lame results.

You should know that as much as medical doctors have an intimidating amount of knowledge and experience behind their backs, the amount of knowledge they consciously or unconsciously ignore is even more intimidating. On top if it, their knowledge is too compartmented. Modern medicine is not an integrative field and that’s the main reason it is very limited in finding cures for systemic diseases like cancer. Integrative means that it combines different fields so it becomes a whole. Cancer involves concepts in nutrition, microbiology, parasitology, mycology, and allergology among others, not only the study of tumors. Much of what happens in our bodies at a cellular level is still a mystery. There are a few theories on why we get cancer that remain undisputed, and they are all different. Still, modern medicine will hang to just one big general conclusion: cancer is a foreign entity that needs to be destroyed, eliminated, eradicated. Everything from diagnosis to treatment revolves around this single concept. Well, if in more than 60 years cancer as a disease remains so unstoppable, don’t you think it’s fair to question whether this simplistic approach makes sense anymore?

In fact, cancer has been simplified and reduced to a few abstractions. The complexity of the cancerous process has been shrank to a very simple growth theory, thanks in part to the compilation of thousands of statistics. To make matters worse, cancer is a relatively contemporary disease. Maybe that’s why people don’t know much about it, just that you die from it and that the cure hasn’t been discovered yet.

None of this would matter if it wasn’t for one thing, the fact that a few scientists and health-care practitioners inside and outside conventional medicine have actually been able to heal cancer, without harm, at much greater success rates, and along the way, have proposed new theories, new treatments, new approaches. Still, modern medicine refuses to integrate all this outcast knowledge to cure your cancer in a smarter way. So, there you are, in the middle of a political battle and you don’t even know it.

Let me break down for you the biggest dilemma you will face: you either go out of your way to find out on your own what people know and share about cancer than conventional medicine doesn’t, or you remain in the dark with a toxic codependent relationship with the very limited approach that conventional oncology has been providing for more than 60 years with poor results.

Since the same time as oncology started treating cancer the way is treated today, over 300 gentle, non-toxic alternative cancer treatments have been discovered. They contain natural, non synthetic ingredients that stop and regress your cancer. They are backed by years of independent statistics showing higher success rates and lower toxicity effects than their synthetic, approved opponents. None of them have been accepted by modern medicine, yet people continue to heal their cancers using them. Start by asking yourself why… and then keep on asking.

2. Apathy

If you were able to tear down some walls and get through some alternative knowledge about cancer, you might find yourself not up for the next challenge: being alone with what you know. From now on, controversy becomes part of any decision. It’s a lot of pressure. You will find a lot of material on what causes cancer and what doesn’t, and you finally realize that oncologists will not go out of their way to guide you. For example, you might be extremely lucky to learn somewhere, through a book, an article, or a friend (not your oncologist), that sugar feeds cancer big time. Be happy you are aware of it. If you read a bit more you might even find out that all kinds of sugar cause cancer and that if you stop its intake you keep your cancer cells starved and weak. They might even stop spreading. So why don’t you act on it?

I have observed that the majority of people who understand that some dietary restrictions and supplementation are key to slow and even stop their cancer, do not apply them. No matter how rich or poor, literate or illiterate, they find there is too much pressure, or that it is too crazy. They won’t believe the science or if they do, they tip-toe over it and create their own conclusions. Sometimes the pressure is too big and the knowledge too small. You’re like a paper soldier in the midst of a hurricane. Sometimes the change is too radical, too drastic, too far of a distance. But sometimes it is just pure apathy, pure lack of discipline.

We live in a materialistic society in which we are judged by what we have or not have. For us life is not a project, it is a succession of acts: the acts of now. We get what we want and we dispose of what we don’t want… now. If we get a tumor, we want to get rid of it, but we don’t want to get rid of what might have caused it, mainly because we would be judged extensively and that’s too much pressure, even if your own life is at stake. We don’t want that tumor to affect other areas of our life. We just want to get rid of it, ASAP, NOW. We have disassociated from it, that tumor is not us, it’s against us. We get obfuscated by such distorted view of our disease and we blind ourselves from anything that doesn’t get rid of the tumor ipso facto.

In the now famous book The China Study, Dr Campbell was able to prove that whenever he fed meat to a mouse, its tumors would grow immediately; whenever he fed vegetables, tumors would stop growing at once. It’s a pretty striking piece of information, yet people dismiss its implications even if they are lucky enough to come across it. Following a wholesome vegan diet would be the smartest choice if you have cancer, despite the fact that you doctor doesn’t even know why. But people confuse following a vegan diet for being vegan, and that seems like an unacceptable change.

It amazes me how people go through life facing tough challenges: separations, divorce, changing jobs, moving, yet when they are face to face with the possibility of dying, they are unable to take on something much much easier: changing their diets and taking supplements. What’s worse, even after diagnosis and treatment, people resume their lives as normal, even when they are aware of all the things they could to to keep Pandora’s box from opening anytime soon.

Apathy is your biggest enemy after ignorance. There are no half way approaches to cancer, either you do things that spread it or you do things that stop it. In other words, cheating works against you: if you fall and scrape your knee once, you body will heal the wound given time, but if you keep falling on the same knee day in and day out, your body will never heal, the wound will get worse each time you fall until sooner or later you loose your knee.

3. Denial.

In Wikipedia, denial is defined as a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether, admit the fact but deny its importance, or admit both the fact and importance but deny responsibility. The concept of denial conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Does this sound familiar to you?

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross used denial as the first of five stages in the psychology of a dying patient. Here are the stages:

1. Denial:
   • Example – “I feel fine.”; “This can’t be happening.”
2. Anger:
   • Example – “Why me? It’s not fair!” “NO! NO! How can you accept this!”
3. Bargaining:
   • Example – “Just let me live to see my children graduate.”; “I’ll do anything, can’t you stretch it out? A few more years.”
4. Depression:
   • Example – “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die . . . What’s the point?”
5. Acceptance:
   • Example – “It’s going to be OK.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”

You might be familiar with these feelings, especially if you have been diagnosed with cancer. The problem is that I find most people get stuck in the first stage: denial. And they apply it not only to their diagnosis, but also to anything that is out of their limited perspective, like alternative treatments, for example. When it might be time to look into alternative, nutritional, or nontoxic treatments, which are based on more solid theories, offer more compelling evidence, and do far less harm…denial makes people distrust them ot reject them altogether. In fact, they will go out of their way to convince themselves that anything not coming from their doctor’s mouth is Hocus Pocus. They will always find that hidden article that debunks everything, or the book that smashes the “myth”, or the friend who knows somebody who died anyways.

You should know that THOUSANDS of people who had aggressive, stage IV, metastasized cancer are completely well today thanks to the help of alternative treatments. You should know that “if a drug or regimen has not been proven to cure, significantly prolong actual survival, or improve the quality of life (if it only temporarily shrinks tumors, with a probable loss in well being), then it is at most entirely experimental and unproven, and should not be represented as anything else. At worst, it could be not just ineffective, but painful, destructive, even fatal.” –Ralph Moss

If you think denial will not interefere with your ability to comprehend your stance against cancer and make smart decisions, think again: the American Heart Association cites denial as a principal reason that treatment of a heart attack is delayed. Because the symptoms are so varied, and often have other potential explanations, the opportunity exists for the patient to deny the emergency, often with fatal consequences. The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs as well. The ability to deny or minimize is an essential part of what enables an addict to continue his or her behavior in the face of evidence that, to an outsider, appears overwhelming.

Here are the different kinds of denial. I’ve seen people dealing with cancer having most of them, if not all:

Denial of fact: This form of denial is where someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details in order to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as “yesing” behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies in order to avoid facts that they think may be potentially painful to themselves or others.

Denial of responsibility: This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by blaming, minimizing or justifying. Blaming is a direct statement shifting culpability and may overlap with denial of fact. Minimizing is an attempt to make the effects or results of an action appear to be less harmful than they may actually be. Justifying is when someone takes a choice and attempts to make that choice look okay due to their perception of what is “right” in a situation. Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.

Denial of impact: Denial of impact involves a person avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms their behavior have caused to themselves or others. By doing this, that person is able to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent that person from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

Denial of awareness: This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.

Denial of cycle: Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, “it just happened.” Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).

Denial of denial: This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one’s personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion.

So, there you have it, as long as you leave denial untreated, you will have a greater risk of making unpredictable and terrible decisions. This is from Professor Hardin B. Jones, Ph. D., one of the nation’s top statisticians in the field of cancer, former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley. After years of analyzing clinical records, this is what he had to say:

“My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery”

Macrobiotics approaches disease in a way that I first found ridiculous: it treats denial before any other symptoms. It states that with denial, there can be no healing. When I first read about it I thought it was a preposterous idea. I don’t think that way now. I’ve seen time and again people making the most stupid choices and coming up with the lamest excuses when dealing with cancer. How does macrobiotics treat Denial? Concentrating on Appreciation. Appreciation means shifting focus away from resistance, doubt, and fear. It is letting go of self denial and complaint, and consciously choosing a better feeling thought.  Appreciation is actively looking for ways to feel better.

Macrobiotic practitioners and teachers shift from curing illness to seeking well being. They don’t claim to cure anything but they absolutely guarantee you will feel better. Now that’s a guarantee I’d like to hear from modern oncology.