Just to offer an alternative opinion on this thread for a little balance, although I doubt it'll be popular because I'm not very conventional. 
One type of treatment isn't going to work for everyone as there are many factors involved and everyone is different. But to say this and other alternative therapies don't work is naive in my opinion, because they can and do work with plenty of people who can testify to that. Why are those people not reported on in the mainstream media? Well, you'd have to do your own research into that, but it's not because they don't exist.
Take a look into how many people die due to conventional chemo therapy rather than the actual cancer itself - yet apparently because that's supposedly the only real viable conventional option medicine can offer then that's seen as worth the risk.
After the billions spent on cancer research, the years looking into this and the number of people searching for cures and treatments, is chemo really the best we can come up with as a species to treat and cure cancer, seriously - does no one find that even slightly odd?
Do we honestly believe cancer is that hard to figure out?
The key issue here is profit; if there were cheap and readily available cures for cancer, do you think the drug industry would want people to know that, of course not, it's bad for business to make people fit and well at a low cost. As harsh and unbelievable as that sounds to most normal well-adjusted people out there (it's a struggle to believe - I get that), unfortunately the mistake made here is putting yourself in that position. Of course you'd do the right thing if you discovered cheap and effective cures, unfortunately however there are powerful people and industries out there that couldn't give a monkeys about people's well-being, it's money and a good supply of customers they care about.
But surely you may say - the Drs would realise this and wouldn't stand for that? The Drs go by what they're told and taught in medical schools and by conventional journals and monitored/sponsored peer testing and trials - those that do discover or point point out alternatives are quickly put down and ostracised by their peers, it's by design and has been going on for decades.
It doesn't take many examples of what happens to a professional health practitioner's peers that 'break the norm' before others in the same industry realise that if they want to keep their successful careers, they better sing to the same (conventional) hymn sheet.
As wonderful and simple as it is to say "if there were cheap and effective cures like this everyone would have it and my Dr would be prescribing it already" - while perhaps comforting, like an Ostrich burying it's head in the sand, it's not the reality here.
It's not all goodness and light out there in the medical and media industries, but you need to do some research yourself, rather than blindly dismissing alternatives because it doesn't fit what the BBC news and conventional medicine tells you is possible or not - review a broader spectrum of sources to get a more accurate picture.
I don't blame people for dismissing the above point of view; the public - as the familiar saying goes - are treated like mushrooms: fed crap and kept in the dark.
Just try and keep an open mind, as history teaches, conventional opinion and theories often turn out to be completely wrong, but if you wall yourself in and dismiss things because they're a little different or not the norm at the time, then you're limiting yourself and your options.
One type of treatment isn't going to work for everyone as there are many factors involved and everyone is different. But to say this and other alternative therapies don't work is naive in my opinion, because they can and do work with plenty of people who can testify to that. Why are those people not reported on in the mainstream media? Well, you'd have to do your own research into that, but it's not because they don't exist.
Take a look into how many people die due to conventional chemo therapy rather than the actual cancer itself - yet apparently because that's supposedly the only real viable conventional option medicine can offer then that's seen as worth the risk.
After the billions spent on cancer research, the years looking into this and the number of people searching for cures and treatments, is chemo really the best we can come up with as a species to treat and cure cancer, seriously - does no one find that even slightly odd?
Do we honestly believe cancer is that hard to figure out?
The key issue here is profit; if there were cheap and readily available cures for cancer, do you think the drug industry would want people to know that, of course not, it's bad for business to make people fit and well at a low cost. As harsh and unbelievable as that sounds to most normal well-adjusted people out there (it's a struggle to believe - I get that), unfortunately the mistake made here is putting yourself in that position. Of course you'd do the right thing if you discovered cheap and effective cures, unfortunately however there are powerful people and industries out there that couldn't give a monkeys about people's well-being, it's money and a good supply of customers they care about.
But surely you may say - the Drs would realise this and wouldn't stand for that? The Drs go by what they're told and taught in medical schools and by conventional journals and monitored/sponsored peer testing and trials - those that do discover or point point out alternatives are quickly put down and ostracised by their peers, it's by design and has been going on for decades.
It doesn't take many examples of what happens to a professional health practitioner's peers that 'break the norm' before others in the same industry realise that if they want to keep their successful careers, they better sing to the same (conventional) hymn sheet.
As wonderful and simple as it is to say "if there were cheap and effective cures like this everyone would have it and my Dr would be prescribing it already" - while perhaps comforting, like an Ostrich burying it's head in the sand, it's not the reality here.
It's not all goodness and light out there in the medical and media industries, but you need to do some research yourself, rather than blindly dismissing alternatives because it doesn't fit what the BBC news and conventional medicine tells you is possible or not - review a broader spectrum of sources to get a more accurate picture.
I don't blame people for dismissing the above point of view; the public - as the familiar saying goes - are treated like mushrooms: fed crap and kept in the dark.
Just try and keep an open mind, as history teaches, conventional opinion and theories often turn out to be completely wrong, but if you wall yourself in and dismiss things because they're a little different or not the norm at the time, then you're limiting yourself and your options.
