The statistics are astounding, one person in three will develop cancer sometime during his lifetime. There has been a significant increase in the incidence of cancer during the past 100 years. Scientists and doctors have been working on a cure for cancer for most of this century. Cancer is now the second leading cause of death in the United States.

President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1970 and appointed Benno Schmidt as "Cancer Czar" and in the next 20 years 25 billion was spent to solve cancer yet the mortality rate continues to climb. This was stated by John C. Bailar, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at McGill University.  Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands if not millions of man-hours have been spent in trying to solve the riddle of cancer.

Dr. Julian Whitaker, the publisher of Health and Healing, a national monthly medical newsletter stated the following: "The industry built around cancer prevention and treatment is obviously fraudulent. Not only are the most commonly used treatments for cancer often ineffective but they make the patient worse." He goes on to state that billions of dollars are spent on useless research and treatments and that the groups that make, market and apply these debilitating therapies control the billions of dollars from government and charities that are put back into variations of these therapies that have proven to be unsuccessful. He states that until we recognize the fraudulent nature of the current approach that the situation will not get better. He also states that never before have such toxic therapies been accepted by patients and doctors despite evidence that they do no good. 2

These are bold statements but one has to ask if it is a cure that is being sought or simply the existence of status quo. These papers will present to you some unorthodox methods of treating cancer and you and your doctor must decide what to do, if anything, with this information. This information is a collection of cancer treatments that I have found after months of research into this subject.

It is hypothesized that the diet that we eat has a significant effect on our health and study after study has confirmed this thinking. The average American diet is loaded with saturated animal fats, refined sugars, excessive salt, bleached flour, nitrided and nitrated meats, pickled foods, alcohol, preservatives and over processed junk that have been labeled as edible. Nutrients have been removed through processing, enzymes have been destroyed entirely through cooking and minerals are missing. In addition exposure to carcinogenic chemicals has put the population at risk of contracting cancer. Cigarette smoke, inappropriate food storage, metal and cement dust exposure all contribute to this disease. These insults to the human body has not gone un-punished. The results have been devastating to the health of the average American.

Lets look at today's health of the American population; 11 million have diabetes, 40 million have arthritis, 35 million have allergies, 3 million have Alzheimer's, 25 million have liver or gallbladder problems, 4 million have peptic ulcers, 64 million have cardiovascular disease, 2 million have emphysema, 34 million are obese, 48 million have mental disorders and the list goes on. An appalling statistic for the health of one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Unfortunately economic success has little to do with correct eating habits. Once mans basic needs have been met and he can afford to keep his stomach full, then additional wealth only guarantees that he will strive to buy the food which appeal to him and not necessarily that which is healthy for him. There are primitive societies in remote corners of the world that have life expectancy far greater than the American one and it is due in part to diet.

It was always interesting to me having lived on a farm that we insure that our farm animals have well balanced diets. Scientists have developed sophisticated foods to insure that the milk production of dairy cattle is maximized. Chickens are fed optimum nutrients to insure maximum growth and the production of the best quality eggs. Race horses are carefully fed to insure proper development, but when it comes to our diets anything that tastes good is acceptable. We pay more attention to the food that we give our cats and dogs than to ours or our children's and the results are obvious.

Having traveled and lived in Asian countries it has been my observation that the general health of the people in the Orient is superior to that of the U.S. It may be true that we have a greater longevity than some of these people, but there is a big difference in spending a part of your life crippled or chronically ill as opposed to enjoying good health. Statistics that prove that we live a few years longer than some of our neighbors in other countries are deceptive in that they do not show the quality of life. Good health makes life worth living, poor health may simply be a living hell.

So what does this have to do with cancer: plenty. We have over-processed foods thereby removing essential nutrients from them we as a society have been quick to approve thousands of food additives when the long term effects of these foreign substances are just not known. We are living in a world that is filled with chemicals that we should not be exposed to or ingest. There are presently thousands of food additives and no one can know the potentially detrimental effect that these chemical play in combination with each other especially since people do not all react the same way to similar foods or chemicals. The permutations and combinations of combining these additives would just not be possible to study. The option is to shun as many of these unknowns as possible, by eating a diet that consists of fresh fruits and vegetables, and foods that have been processed as little as possible.

Additionally to further insult our bodies carcinogenic substances are found in nature and in man made substances. We have mold on peanuts which is known to cause liver cancer. Asbestos if inhaled will cause lung cancer. Excessive alcohol will significantly increase your risk of esophageal cancer, nitrated meats have been linked to stomach cancer. Exposure to the sun will increase your risk of skin cancer, smoking can almost guarantee a reduction in your life-span and make you a prime candidate for lung cancer.

It may sound strange that despite the progress and sophistication of medical science and technology both the incidence and the mortality rate of many cancers have increased. It has been stated that cancer is an immune deficiency disease and will not grow unless there is dysfunction of the immune system.

If one adopts this belief, and there is plenty of recent research to do this, then strengthening the immune system is a primary perquisite to restored health. It is now believed by a number of physicians that a properly functioning immune system keeps cancer in check. We are all exposed to this disease but it is only after repeated insults to our body's that our systems are unable to cope and then cell division progresses out of control and this we call cancer.

In the treatment of cancer the worst approach is the treatment of the symptoms; this is what conventional cancer therapy is all about. The next best approach is to treat the disease and this is what many of the non traditional therapies do. The best approach is to heal the body so that it can cure the illness. Regardless of the arrogance of our generation we as a collective group, still understand very little of the bodies functioning, aging and healing processes. If the body is in good physical health it will cure many of the diseases on its own and even thought we may not understand this process we would be remiss to ignore this important fact.

I have spoken with doctors who have the fatalistic opinion that cancer is an inevitable result of the aging process and that given a long enough life span that all of us will develop cancer. This is just not true, there are a number of societies in the world where disease is very rare and death is a result of old age. Actually the body has a marvelous system of checks and balances that if working properly will keep cancer at bay.

Slowly this puzzle is being solved but it is unfortunate that due to the bureaucratic mechanism that governs the medical industry that the beneficial discoveries of so many intelligent physicians and researchers will not be quickly accepted, if ever.

It is a pity that it took so many years to realize that the individual states of America could probably do a better job of administering the welfare program. With that power now shifted to the individual states, there will be 50 individual approaches instead of one lumbering direction that proved to be a dismal failure for decades. Imagine if this same autonomy for medical experimentation and drug use were also shifted to the state level then clearly there would be a resurgence of creativity and experimentation that would probably make numerous major breakthrough in medical history.

By the very nature of its size and its philosophy, the national medical governing bodies of the United States are slow to react to promising discoveries and sometimes quick to suppress beneficial one. In the private sector this would be attacked legislatively as a monopoly and forced to break up into fragment companies so as to compete. Any organization run by the federal government or given a mandate to operate exclusively and backed by the government is inherently ineffective as compared to one spawned by competition.

Dr. Julian Whitaker the publisher of "Health and Healing" monthly medical report, had an excellent article on cancer and stated the following in his October 1995 edition:" Since 1950, the incidence of all cancers in people between the ages of 50 and 60 years have increased by 44%, with even higher increases in some of the more deadly forms of cancer. Breast and colon cancer went up 60%, prostate up 100%, and testicular cancer for men between ages of 28 and 35 went up 300%. Lung cancer has gone up 262%, an increase that is obviously not related to cigarette smoking, because over the same period the number of people smoking cigarettes dropped from 50% to 25%."

"The 5 year survival rate for people who have received conventional treatment has stayed the same since 1950 at 50% for whites and 38% for blacks. For almost 50 years, surgical procedures, a variety of cellular poisons called chemotherapy, and a host of techniques for delivering radiation to cancerous tumors have been used as treatments. These statistics will continue to worsen until we realize that fraudulent nature of the current approach, and muster the courage to do something about it."

In 1986 a biostatistician at Harvard and editor of the Journal of National Cancer Institute, reported in a 1986 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine the results of efforts to treat cancer from 1950 to 1985. He stated "no evidence that some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome - death. Indeed, with respect to cancer as a whole, we have slowly lost ground ..." "Cancer incidents ... trends are upward... suggesting a failure to prevent or control new or current causes of cancer." " The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense efforts focused largely on improvement of treatment must be judged a qualified failure" This is unfortunately a bold but accurate statement of the existing state of affairs.