Slash burn and poison is not that effective and should not have a monopoly on cancer treatment

Have to laugh at this article by oncologist Dr Ranjana Srivastava in todays Guardian 4/3/15

“What do doctors say to ‘alternative therapists’ when a patient dies? Nothing.

You have to love this outrage when someone decided to shun the medical cartel for cancer treatment! I went with conventional treatment in 2011, was told I was lucky it had been picked up early and “survival rates” with orthodox treatment were 80%. Pretty good odds I thought what I did not realize and it was never explained, “Survival” does not mean “cure” it means with orthodox treatment you have an 80% chance of being alive in 5 years, you may be riddled with cancer and die a day after the five years but you will be included in the statistics as a “cancer survivor”. In August 2012 I was given the all clear, 12 months later I was told I was terminal.Then last August they could not find the cancer on the scan?? The only person so far who has not been wrong with their predictions was the fortune teller who told me last year I would live to 85. Truth is no one knows for certain how cancer is going to develop or how its going to affect people mentally. The orthodox methods of “burn, slash and poison” is a very downloadblunt instrument, when you consider chemo only improves the odds by something like 13%, and can have terrible side effects, in my case causing a peripheral neuropathy in hands and feet and did not stop the cancer spreading. No one promised me a miracle, the consultants at the Royal Marsden offered me “hope” which is all anybody can offer with cancer care. However to suggest that “Orthodox Medicine” should have exclusive rights on cancer care, is arrogant and shows a complete lack of understanding as to the reasons why 90% of patients of clinical trials are also having alternative therapies or chose not to have medical treatment at all for cancer. 40 years ago one in 10 people got cancer and now we are told in a few years its going to be 1 in 2 people will get cancer. We live longer, yes and early diagnosis has contributed to the increase, then how many people lived years unaware they had cancer. Considering all the money that has been spent on cancer research since the 60s, 50% of people getting cancer is hardly a success story and this approach is not sustainable with an aging population within the NHS. Cancer is part of the aging process, perhaps its how human cells adapt to their environment as they evolve. The solution to cancer has to be in changing lifestyles and putting peoples health before profits not the crude slash, burn, poison method favored by the medical profession. As readers of this blog will know I am self medicating with cannabis oil, anecdotal evidence suggests it may slow down the resurgence of the cancer again I am not expecting miracles I live in hope, but how would we ever know it works if oncologists like this will not even consider the possibility and scan patients to see if other therapies have a effect on cancer development??

Bookmark the permalink.

About Richard Lanigan

Born 1957, have 4 children. Was diagnosed with stage three rectal cancer in March 2011.

4 Responses to Slash burn and poison is not that effective and should not have a monopoly on cancer treatment

  1. terence rogers says:

    The NHS has been for many years a cash cow for the chosen few who realized decades ago that a fortune can be made by peddling slash, poison, burn.
    After all why bite
    the hand m
    Mlakes you rich.

  2. terence rogers says:

    The truth of the matter is that too many people are making a very, very good living by performing the drug company manufactured treatments to want any change even when they know it is not working.

  3. I sent this e-mail to day Dr Ranjana Srivastava; “I read your article in yesterdays Guardian and could not help wondering how you knew “Young Jessica Ainscough, shunned conventional treatment for her sarcoma” my information is she had conventional treatment and it did not work and when told there was no hope focused on the Gerson Diet. I am terminally ill and oncologists use the term “survival” but it only means a possibility of living five years and it may not be a “quality life”, the fact Jessica lived well with cancer for seven years, was a result and you dont seem particularly interested in how she achieved this? When you are terminally ill all you want is a ray of hope and I could care less where it comes from because it gives me a reason to liv. Having been told I had 22 months in August 2012, it really lifted me when a fortune teller told me I would live to be 85, I dont believe people can see into the future or you can cure cancer, its most likely how human cells adapt to their environment and evolve. Perhaps you should do what you want the alternative practitioners to do and be clear that when you talk of “survival” you dont really mean a cure, you are just peddling hope like everyone else and you can only guess, how each individual will respond to treatment or what their prognosis is. Kind regards Richard Lanigan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.