Is The Present Day Cancer Treatment Based on Faulty and Inadequate Science?


Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. This great scientist went on to say that “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.”

You may interpret the above quotations anyway you like and for whatever reason or circumstances you like. Let me put them in the perspective of my own work – herbal therapy for cancer. If I have patients coming to me  every day and I prescribe  A, B or C to them and they don’t get well. I must be a real idiot to keep on giving out the same A, B or C to them again and again hoping that one day someone get cured!

To avoid being an idiot, I tell patients to stop taking our herbs if they feel that they are NOT getting any better after two or three weeks. We do not want to mislead you nor waste your precious time. I take this stance because I really believe in what Einstein said.

There is another lesson I learnt from Einstein. To him complex problems may not need complex answers. There can  just be a simple answer to it! But the problem is, many people in this world want to believe that a complex problem must have a “scientific, complicated and complex” answer. That is why we end up with having “experts.”

These so-called experts are highly educated people who talk a language that you and I may not understand. They make things to appear complicated and complex (so that their expertise are always required!)  Let me repeat, any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It needs a real touch of humility, courage and a lot of common sense to see things differently. In short, complex problem can just be solved simply! Unfortunately again, to many people simple answers are not impressive – too good to be true!

For the past week,  I spent some time surfing the net in addition to reading a book.  I have shared with you what I read about the insights of Professor Paul Davies in the previous posting, Looking At Cancer Through the Eyes of a Physical Scientist, Stop thinking cancer as a disease! I don’t think we need to cure cancer.

I must admit I don’t know if I am happy or I am angry after reading all these. Perhaps a mixture of both.

I am happy, because I thought the experts have decided to wake up and they don’t want to be insane (as defined above) anymore. For the past many decades the cancer problem was handled by “experts” who make things more complex and violent. And the result was dismal. Then not too long ago, someone important decided that perhaps non-cancer experts could provide a better solution to the present day cancer problem. They have decided that it is time to see things from outside the box. For that, I am real glad.

Why was I angry at the same time? If you hear stories day in and day out that people don’t get better because of someone else’s “insanity” you cannot help but become angry – why does the world allow or even encourage such a thing to happen? I don’t have to answer that question! Some patients know why.

And to make things even worse, alternative healers  who propose something “effective” but outside the norm or prevailing paradigm are labeled as quacks or snake oil peddlers.

In this second posting, I ask this question: is the present day cancer treatment based on faulty and inadequate science? I don’t have to answer that question either. Here are some research papers that I came across. Bear with me if you find it difficult to understand the jargons used and the ideas beside the reports.

In a paper, Cancer treatment as a game published in Physical Biology, 2012, Paul Orlando et al wrote:

  • Chemotherapy for metastatic cancer commonly fails due to evolution of drug resistance in tumor cells.
  • We view cancer treatment as a game in which the oncologists choose a therapy and tumors ‘choose’ an adaptive strategy.

Read more:

In a paper by Ariosto Silva et al (Cancer Res; 72(24); 6362–70. 2012.)

  • Many cancers adapt to chemotherapeutic agents by upregulating membrane efflux pumps that export drugs from the cytoplasm, but this response comes at an energetic cost. Chemoresistant cells must consume excess resources to maintain resistance mechanisms.
  • In breast cancer patients, expression of these pumps is low in tumors before therapy but increases after treatment.
    • The authors proposed a new method of treatment which they called “adaptive therapy.” They wrote: “Our findings challenge the existing flawed paradigm of maximum dose treatment, a strategy that inevitably produces drug resistance.”


What is adaptive therapy?

  • At the moment, the future of cancer research seems to be centered in the field of targeted chemotherapy. However, it is evident that currently neither conventional nor targeted chemotherapies will suffice against resilient tumors. 
  • Conventional therapies generally aim for maximum cell death in the shortest amount of time using fixed regimens of drugs designed to eliminate as much of the tumor mass as possible under tolerable levels of toxicity to the patient. 
  • However, our perception of cancer has begun to change. It is becoming increasingly evident that an individual’s cancer can be viewed as a Darwinian ecosystem containing a heterogeneous mixture of genetically distinct cancer cell types that compete amongst each other for space and resources. 
  • This competition, combined with conditions within the tumor micro-environment and cancer phenotypes conducive to increased DNA damage, stimulate the rapid evolution of tumor lineages. Unfortunately, this often renders current therapies ineffective against highly adaptable cancers that quickly develop resistant cell types. 
  •  Adaptive Therapy, a relatively new field of cancer treatment, has the potential to counteract cancer’s ability to adapt. 
  • When intensive drug regimens are applied, the competition pressure of the chemosensitive cells is removed. This allows the resistant cells to proliferate freely, essentially dooming the patient. 
  • An adaptive approach would take advantage of this discrepancy in fitness to hold the overall population of cancer cells at a low constant, avoiding the possibility of tumors consisting entirely of resistant cells. Essentially, the ultimate goal of adaptive therapy would be to manage a tumor mass efficiently by administering drugs in a dynamic regimen tailored to each individual cancer, thereby allowing the patient to effectively outlive the cancer by managing its growth over time.


In another paper, Adaptive therapy (Cancer Research, 69:4894-903,2009) Gatenby et al. wrote:

  • A number of successful systemic therapies are available for treatment of disseminated cancers. However, tumor response is often transient, and therapy frequently fails due to emergence of resistant populations. The latter reflects the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment as well as the evolutionary capacity of cancer phenotypes to adapt to therapeutic perturbations.
  • Although cancers are highly dynamic systems, cancer therapy is typically administered according to a fixed, linear protocol.
  • If resistant populations are present before administration of therapy, treatments designed to kill maximum numbers of cancer cells remove this inhibitory effect and actually promote more rapid growth of the resistant populations.
  • We present an alternative approach in which treatment is continuously modulated to achieve a fixed tumor population. The goal of adaptive therapy is to enforce a stable tumor burden by permitting a significant population of chemosensitive cells to survive so that they, in turn, suppress proliferation of the less fit but chemoresistant subpopulations. 

In a paper, Physics of cancer – the impact of heterogeneity, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, Vol. 3: 363-382, 2012, Qiucen Zhang and Robert Austin wrote:

  • It is a common mistake to view cancer as a single disease with a single possible cure which we have just not found yet.
  • In reality cancer takes on many forms that share a common symptom: uncontrolled cell growth and successful invasion of cancer colonies to remote regions of the body.
  • The key reason why we may never be able to defeat cancer may lie in the extreme heterogeneity of the population of the cells in a tumor: there is no one magic bullet.
  • All malignant cancers… are fundamentally governed by Darwinian dynamics.
  • The process of carcinogenesis requires genetic instability and highly selective local microenvironments, the combination of which promotes somatic evolution.
  • These microenvironmental forces, specifically hypoxia (low oxygen conditions), acidosis and reactive oxygen species, are not only highly selective, but are also able to induce genetic instability.
  • As a result, malignant cancers are dynamically evolving clades of cells living in distinct microhabitats that almost certainly ensure the emergence of therapy-resistant populations.
  • Cytotoxic cancer therapies also impose intense evolutionary selection pressures on the surviving cells and thus increase the evolutionary rate. 

Gillies et al ( Nat Rev Cancer. 12: 487-93, 2012) in their paper Evolutionary dynamics of carcinogenesis and why targeted therapy does not work.

Eric Schuur in his blog post Time to Rethink Cancer Therapy? on 28 November 2012 wrote:

  • The feeling of frustration in chasing cancer up the path only to have it resurrect out of seemingly nowhere still further upstream is a signal to me. I have sensed in this frustration a signal to think about cancer pathogenesis and treatment in new ways, like I’m sure others have.
  • Recently I have been gratified to hear a number of researchers propose new views of what cancer is and new strategies for treating it.
  • I have been a member of a tumor microenvironment interest group for a while, mostly to keep an ear to the ground in that area. Having spent many years trying to grow cancer cells in various ways, it is clear to me that they depend heavily on their microenvironment to survive.
  • I noticed a few publications suggesting that resistance to chemical therapy may be mediated by more than just the response of the tumor cells. These studies suggest that the tumor microenvironment may provide protection from anti-cancer agents by secreting of growth factors from stromal cells intermingled with the tumor cells.
  • In one study, WNT16B growth factor secretion was induced in stromal fibroblasts, which in turn protected the cancer cells from programmed cell death.
  • Rethinking cancer therapy has been proposed by Robert Gatenby and colleagues for some time.



Let me briefly summarise what these researchers said.

1. Chemotherapy for metastatic cancer commonly fails due to evolution of tumour cells to become  drug resistant.

2. So going to the oncologist is like playing a game .. the oncologists choose a therapy and the tumors ‘choose’ an adaptive strategy. A famous Singapore oncologist put it in a different way – It is just like buying a lottery hoping to strike a jackpot!

3. When chemo drugs are pumped into you, the cancer cells work overtime to pump out the drugs from their cells. If no chemo drugs were applied, the pump activity was low. This activity increased after chemo treatment. Increased activity means the cells need more energy – will this not make your MORE sick?

4. The researchers said that the commonly practised maximum-dose-shoot-to-kill treatment is flawed.  Oncologists have been doing this for years. And the patients are made to believe that the stronger the dosage of poison used the higher the chances of  “cure.” And that practice has now been challenged!

5. Now there is a new buzz word —  the future of cancer research seems to be centered in the field of targeted chemotherapy.  Take note of the terminology used nowadays, Targeted Therapy! However, it is evident that currently neither conventional nor targeted chemotherapies will suffice against resilient tumors. Target therapy make a lot of money but for patients I don’t see much meaningful results. Very often, we see disappointment. Why?

6. The researchers provide the answer:  tumor response is often transient, and therapy frequently fails due to emergence of resistant populations. Why are they resistant to the chemo-drugs? The latter reflects the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment as well as the evolutionary capacity of cancer phenotypes to adapt to therapeutic perturbations.

7. Is the kill-all-cancer-cells strategy that is done today the correct approach? Not so. You don’t have to kill all the cancer cells in your body. The goal of adaptive therapy is to enforce a stable tumor burden by permitting a significant population of chemosensitive cells to survive so that they, in turn, suppress proliferation of the less fit but chemoresistant subpopulations.

8. It is a common mistake to view cancer as a single disease with a single possible cure which we have just not found yet. The key reason why we may never be able to defeat cancer may lie in the extreme heterogeneity of the population of the cells in a tumor: there is no one magic bullet.

9. The process of cancer that occurs in your body requires genetic instability and highly selective local microenvironments, the combination of which promotes somatic evolution. Hypoxia (low oxygen conditions), acidosis and reactive oxygen species … are also able to induce genetic instability. Don’t blame it all on only the  genes. You don’t have to remove your two beautiful breasts trying to prevent cancer! O, poor actress? There are MORE to it than just the genes.

10. Malignant cancers are dynamically evolving … living in distinct microhabitats that almost certainly ensure the emergence of therapy-resistant populations. Cytotoxic cancer therapies also impose intense evolutionary selection pressures on the surviving cells and thus increase the evolutionary rate. Take note, cytotoxic cancer therapies also contribute to this problem! You don’t cure cancer – you make cancer – with chemotherapy!

11. At long last, someone –  Eric Schuur in his blog post said: Time to Rethink Cancer Therapy? Having spent many years trying to grow cancer cells in various ways, it is clear to me that they depend heavily on their microenvironment to survive. Cancer treatment is not just about KILLING cancer cells. There is more to this!

12. If there is one message you need to know, here it is: Chemotherapy Spreads Cancer and Makes It More Aggressive.  (Click link to read more.)

If you have appetite for more, read my next post: Quotations from: NEVER FEAR CANCER AGAIN.


Looking At Cancer Through the Eyes of a Physical Scientist

Stop thinking cancer as a disease! I don’t think we need to cure cancer

Cancer research has traditionally been carried out by biologists and medical researchers. They did not seem to get  anywhere, in spite of being able to generate tons and tons of data.

In 2008, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) created 12 “Physical Science-Oncology Centers institutions” and sponsored mathematicians and physical scientists to initiate new, non-traditional approaches to cancer research.

NCI Director John E. Niederhuber said: “By bringing a fresh set of eyes to the study of cancer, these new centers have great potential to advance, and sometimes challenge, accepted theories about cancer and its supportive microenvironment. Physical scientists think in terms of time, space, pressure, heat and evolution in ways that we hope will lead to new understandings of the multitude of forces that govern cancer.”

One of the scientists involved in the “rethinking”  of cancer is Professor Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist and  astrobiologist. He is Regents’ Professor and Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative, and Principal Investigator in the Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology, all at Arizona State University.

I have the benefit of reading some of Dr. Davies’  papers found in the internet.

Physics not biology may be key to beating cancer. Source:

Cancer: The beat of an ancient drum. Source: The Guardian,  25 April 2011

New research program to approach cancer studies differently. Source: 

Rethinking cancer. Physics World, 2010. Source: 

For your information, let me quote what this learned, non-medical professor said about cancer. Indeed we need non-medical researchers to call a spade a spade. Let’s hope that those in the medical profession take heed.

Present Day Cancer Research

  • Cancer touches almost everyone in some way. Forty years ago President Richard Nixon declared a “war on cancer”. Yet in spite of $100 billion of taxpayer-funded research in the US alone, the mortality and morbidity rates for most cancers have remained almost unchanged. 
  • Dozens of much-hyped “cures” developed by drug companies are either useless or have marginal effect. 
  • Billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research and a million research papers have been published, yet most cancer sufferers have not benefited greatly from that effort. 
  • With the exception of a handful of cancer types, such as childhood leukaemia, progress on treatments has been limited to baby steps …  leading to marginal extensions of life expectancy.
  • Cancer biology is a subject about which a vast amount is known but very little is understood. So could it be that researchers cannot see the wood for the trees? 
  • Right now, the huge cancer research programme is long on technical data, but short on understanding.
  • Cancer research is dominated by genetics and biochemistry. That’s why we have the therapies, genetic and chemotherapy, as the main approaches. I think that we can open up a whole new frontier just by thinking about the problem in a totally different way.

Changing Concept of Cell

  • In the 19th century, living organisms were widely regarded as machines infused by vital forces.
  • Biologists eventually came to realise that cells are … complex networks of chemical reaction pathways.
  • Then came the genetics revolution, which describes life in the informational language of instructions, codes and signalling.

Mainstream research today focuses almost exclusively on chemical pathways or genetic sequencing. For example, drugs are designed to block reaction pathways implicated in cancer. But while of great scientific interest, such projects have not led to the much-anticipated breakthrough. Why?

There are fundamental obstacles: living cells, including cancer cells, are a bottomless pit of complexity, and cancer cells are notoriously heterogeneous. A reductionist approach that seeks to unravel the details of every pathway of every cancer cell type might employ researchers for decades and consume billions of dollars, with little impact clinically.

  • Here is …  another way of looking at cells. In addition to being bags of chemicals and information processing systems, they are also physical objects, with properties such as size, mass, shape, elasticity, free energy, surface stickiness and electrical potential. Cancer cells contain pumps, levers, pulleys and other paraphernalia familiar to physicists and engineers. Furthermore, many of these properties are known to change systematically as cancer progresses in malignancy.
  • The challenge is now to unify all three pictures – chemical, genetic and mechanistic.

Need to Change the Perception About Disease and Cure

  • To make a start …  it is helpful to stop thinking of cancer as a disease to be cured.
  • Many accounts misleadingly describe cancer as rogue cells running amok.
  • Cancer cells are not themselves “germs”; rather, they are part of one’s own body, misbehaving in a manner that may produce undesirable consequences for the organism. 
  • I don’t think we need to cure cancer.  We do not need a “cure”; rather, we need to better control and manage how cancer cells behave and, ideally, prevent cells turning malignant in the first place. 
  • In fact, I don’t really think of cancer as a disease as much as an alternative form of living matter. We don’t need to cure it, we just need to manage it for long enough that people die of something else. 
  • It is a misconception to think that people either “have cancer” or not. Cancers usually go through a progression from mostly innocuous progenitor cells to full blown malignancy, and at any given time most people (at least those of middle age and beyond) harbour cancer cells and even small tumours in their bodies that produce no ill effects.
  • Cancer cells are not the invincible enemy of folklore, but recalcitrant variants of healthy cells that face their own struggle for survival against the body’s immune system. 
  • We need to get away from the notion of a cure, and think of controlling or managing cancer. And just as the effects of ageing can be mitigated without a full understanding of the process, the same could be true of cancer. 

Darwinism and Cancer: the Evolutionary Roots

  • With no prior knowledge of cancer, I started asking some very basic questions. What struck me from the outset is that something as pervasive and stubborn as cancer must be a deep part of the story of life itself. 
  • Sure enough, cancer is found in almost all multicellular organisms, suggesting its origins stretch back hundreds of millions of years. 
  • Oncologists tend to think of cancer as a motley collection of cells gone berserk, but to me the way that tumours grow and spread to other organs indicates an organised and systematic strategy, designed to evade all that the body and the medical profession can throw at it. Such well-honed behaviour suggests they are the product of a long period of biological evolution. 
  • Cancer is pervasive among all organisms (not just mammals) in which adult cells proliferate. There is a simple – some may say simplistic – Darwinian explanation of cancer’s insidiousness, which is based on the fact that all life on Earth was originally single-celled. Each cell had a basic imperative: replicate, replicate, replicate. However, the emergence of multicellular organisms about 550million years ago required individual cells to co-operate by subordinating their own selfish genetic agenda to that of the organism as a whole.
  • The genes needed to fashion the primitive cellular aggregates of the Proterozoic era did not all become defunct. Some were incorporated into the genomes of later, more sophisticated, organisms, and lurk inside human beings to this day. That’s because they still serve a crucial function.
  • It  has long been recognised that there are many similarities between cancer and embryo development, and evidence is mounting that some genes expressed during embryogenesis get re-awakened in cancer.  When an embryo develops, its genes lay down a body plan, starting with the most basic and most ancient features.
  • So when an embryo develops, identical stem cells progressively differentiate into specialized cells that differ from organ to organ – be it kidney, brain or lung. All these cells contain the same genes, but not all of the genes are constantly active. The body has a number of chemical mechanisms to switch genes on and off, which allow cells in different organs to have different properties that can vary with time. The colon, for example, needs to rapidly replenish cells sloughed off by the passage of food, whereas the cells in other organs, such as in the brain, have a slow turnover and reproduce only rarely. 
  • With advancing age, however, that command and control system develops flaws. If a cell does stop responding properly to the regulatory signals, it may go on reproducing in an uncontrolled way, forming a tumour specific to the organ in which it arises. 
  • The implications of our theory, if correct, are profound. Rather than cancers being rogue cells degenerating randomly into genetic chaos, they are better regarded as organised footsoldiers marching to the beat of an ancient drum, recapitulating a billion-year-old lifestyle. As cancer progresses in the body, so more and more of the ancestral core within the genetic toolkit is activated, replaying evolution’s story in reverse sequence. And each step confers a more malignant trait, making the oncologist’s job harder. 
  • It is well known that cells regulate the action of genes not just as a result of chemical signals, but because of the physical properties of their micro-environment. They can sense forces such as shear stresses and the elasticity of nearby tissue. They are also responsive to temperature, electric fields, pH, pressure and oxygen concentration. Most normal cells seem to come pre-loaded with a “cancer subroutine” that can be triggered by a variety of insults.

Metastasis – the Spread of Cancer

  • Only 10 percent of people die from primary tumors.  The mere presence of cancer cells in the body is not in itself necessarily a danger. 
  • It is their ability to target, invade and cling to other tissues that leads to problems. 
  • Most existing cancer treatments involve trying to remove a tumour surgically or destroying it with radiation … oncologists are often in the dark about why certain drugs actually work, or why normal dose–response relationships do not seem to apply. Cancer cells are notorious for mutating rapidly, often developing resistance to specific drugs or undergoing a resurgence years later with an acquired immunity somehow remembered. 
  • Chemotherapy can be effective at shrinking tumours and prolonging life somewhat, but …  can even be counter-productive by leaving a handful of resistant cells alive with no competition to arrest their explosive spread. As a result, drugs are rarely the perfect solution. 
  • When cancer cells spread around the body, this is a physics problem. These cells are microscopic bodies being swept along in this raging torrent. They wriggle around, they latch on to surfaces, they drill their way through. This is the sort of language that physicists and engineers can understand.  
  • Although metastasis seems fiendishly efficient, most disseminated cancer cells never go on to cause trouble. The vast majority die, and the survivors may lie dormant for years or even decades, either as individual, quiescent, cells in the bone marrow, or as micro-metastases in tissues, before erupting into proliferating secondary tumours. 
  • When tumours start shedding cells into the bloodstream and lymphatic system, allowing the cancer to spread around the body, a secondary tumour may then develop in organs far removed from the original. 
  • The spread of cancer presents many possibilities for clinical intervention once the dream of a cure has been abandoned. For example, if the period of dormancy can be extended by, say, a factor of five, many breast, colon and prostate cancers would cease to be a health issue. How could this be achieved? 
  • A key hallmark of cancer is that it can also grow in an organ where it does not belong; for example, a prostate-cancer cell may grow in a lymph node, or an ovarian-cancer cell in the liver. 
  • Metastatic cells may lie dormant, like spores, for many years in foreign organs, evading the body’s immune system while retaining their potency. Healthy cells, in contrast, soon die if they are transported beyond their rightful organ. 
  • Although tumour cells struggle to obtain oxygen from the normal blood supply, in response they can switch their metabolism to a low-oxygen cycle, thereby creating acidic conditions as a by-product that can harm other cells. In some respects, the self-centred nature of cancer cells is a reversion to an ancient, pre-multicellular lifestyle. 
  • Cancer cells are therefore neither rogue “selfish cells”, nor do they display the collective discipline of organisms with fully differentiated organs. They fall somewhere in between, perhaps resembling an early form of loosely organized cell colonies. 
  • Nowadays, most cancer researchers adopt a “followthe-genes” approach, based on the notion that an accumulation of defective (mutated) or misbehaving genes are the primary cause of cancer. Humans have between 20 000 and 30 000 genes in total, but many are switched off depending on the type of cell or its stage of growth.


The world ought to be glad to learn that at last someone has decided that perhaps non-medical scientists ought to have a look at cancer from a different perspective. So the US National Cancer Institute decided to invite non-medical experts to research on cancer.

Is this not what Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century said years back?

  • We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
  • When all think alike, no one thinks very much.

I am happy that Professor Paul Davies had come out with his new insights about cancer. He made these suggestions:

  • STOP thinking of cancer as a disease to be cured that must be totally destroyed or bombed out of existence.
  • STOP frightening  or put FEAR in us that cancer consist of rogue cells running amok. These are not an enemy. It is a part of the complexity of life that we inherited since life on earth begun. 
  • TEACH us how to manage the cancer like we manage our ageing process.

For years, practitioners of alternative healing  are saying the same things.  At CA Care I have been telling patients to learn how to live with their cancer. There is no need to fight. Fighting to me implies “war” – and we don’t want to start a war in our body. We need peace and harmony. When the times comes, let us die with our cancer.

Watch this video.

Many cancer patients come to us with a very naive notion. They are bought up by the idea that chemo is going to destroy all the cancer cells and they will be cured. The enemy in the body is done with. Soon afterwards many patients learn the folly of their ignorance.

Then,  they are told,  If the medical treatments cannot destroy all, at least the cancer is brought under control. Here again patients are just being misled — read the next posting to know that medical treatments could actually cause cancer to spread more and make it even more aggressive!`

5 Chemo does not curecancer

Brain Cancer: Radiotherapy – Recurrence; Chemo – Recurrence; and Avastin – Dead


It is indeed with a heavy heart that we have to write this story. However, let us pray that similar story like this does not have to be played out all too often in this world of medicine.  May you all find wisdom and learn from this sad experience.

In the month of May, I had this exchange of e-mails.

1 May 2013  Dear Dr. K.H. Teo,

Our family and I migrated to Australia 22 years ago in 1990 from Malaysia as a skilled migrants and live in Australia ever since.

This is very sad to let you know that my young Architect daughter has brain cancer (grade IV Glioblastoma multiforme) which diagnosed six months ago and under chemo treatment by cancer Specialist in … Australia.

I searched the internet and found that your holistic approach towards healing and advocate the use of herbs for all cancer patient. I would like to buy your herbs. We have a strong faith in Nichiren Buddhism (Japanese) and praying hard for my daughter recovery. She has a positive attitude (and looking towards to be better healthy life.

Kindly let me know the cost and instructions so that I can remit money to you.

Sincerely thanks. Please reply. Kind regards.

Reply: I am sorry we cannot help patients from foreign countries, especially from Australia. We may have problems with your quarantine. Also we are not a direct selling outfit. Chris.

1 May 2013   Dear Dr. K.H. Teo,

Thanks for your email reply.

I try very hard to contact you through the phone on +604 – 6595881 and it goes to a fax tone.  Can you please email me your direct phone contact (not mobile) so that we can have a phone conversation and it does not cost me very much.

I can always take a flight back Penang to buy the herbal medicine from you after you have establish which type of herbs are good for my daughter and bring them myself.

I am very well verse of her brain cancer illness conditions and I can explain to you thoroughly every aspect of her cancer condition and her history. I have a medical file which recorded every chemo treatment and western medicine she has taken including chemo drugs – Termozolmide (Temodal) and now on Avastin (bevacizumab) infusion.

I am waiting for your email now and call you, please.

My family and I are in very desperate situation and we have a lot of pain in our mind and hearts. Hope you understand our feeling as parents and we are praying very hard and trying extremely hard to save our daughter’s life.

Sincerely thanks. Regards.

Reply: You can come and see me with all the medical reports and can take back the herbs. Last week I have a 6 year old girl with brain cancer (like your daughter). No surgery, no chemo because it does not work for such cancer. She took herbs and can now go back to school. Read this story,

Avastin — spreads cancer! That’s the drug they gave you!

There is NO need to talk to me over the phone because there is NOTHING I can do. I need to see the scans and medical reports. Unfortunately the herbs are very bitter and have lousy taste and smell. Not many people can drink them. But that 6-year-old could take them without problem.

I do not talk over the phone for obvious reason that everyone on this earth want to talk to me about their problems. I just cannot cope. Actually I would not want to have patients from overseas. ..NO use …but if you want to come, it is okay with me and then you can get your friends and relatives to send the herbs to you. I cannot handle all these chores.


1 May 2013  Dear Dr. Teo,

Let me give you a brief medical history of my daughter. She has brain cancer – Grade IV Glioblastoma multiforme on her Brain Stem diagnosed 6 months ago in October 2012.

Very much earlier in September 2009, she had diffused Glioma on her brain stem and was treated with 30 doses of Radiation-Chemotherapy over a period of 6 weeks and the Diffused Glioma shrunk and life was back to normal.

Things started to change end of October 2012, recurrence of diffused low grade brain stem glioma with high grade transformation in the cerebellum. Also, they are aggressive tumours now. Admitted to hospital and neurosurgeon has done a surgery to implant a Brain Shunt to relief the brain pressure built up and at the same time, biopsy taken.

On 9 November 2012, first Termozolomide (Temodal tablets 300mg each day) Chemotherapy for 5 days and rest for 23 days (1cycle) for 5 cycles and blood test was done before each Chemo treatment. After 2 cycles, on 2 January 2013, MRI Head Scan showed the tumours actually shrunk and the family jumped with joy.  Tumours responded to chemo treatment. So continued with Termozolomide Chemo until after the fifth Chemo,

MRI Head Scan on 25 March 2013 was done and sad to say that the tumours had grown back to size   even bigger than before. Her condition deteriorated quickly, Medical Oncologist changed to the use of Avastin (becacizumab) infusion. First Avastin infusion was on 4 April 2013. After 3 weeks, second  Avastin Infusion on 24 April 2013. And at present, her condition seems not improving.

She is bed bound, unable to sit on wheelchair, blur vision, slurred speech, right hand shaking, upper and lower limbs very weak, overall health very weak and unable to eat by herself – feeding needed by mother. Her condition has deteriorated fast just a matter of 4 weeks.

Dr. Teo, I will definitely come over to consult you and show you all the MRI head scans.  I am really working extremely hard to save my daughter. Sincerely thanks, Please reply. Regards.

Reply: There is NO hurry to come and see me. She did not get cancer yesterday — she got cancer many years ago yet. No need to rush. Before you come please know that:

a) There is NO cure for cancer. The type of cancer she has cannot be cure by anybody.

b) The most intelligent thing to do is STOP doing the chemo because it does not work and may even spread the cancer more. See what Avastin does to people in the attached file.

c) After that go to and read my book on Cancer What Now — there I have explained everything you need to know. This is written specially for people who come and see me and their expectations.

d) Don’t be misled that there is a cure for cancer. THERE IS NONE. Even if you come to me in a hurry there is NOTHING much I can do except to give you the herbs and hope for the best.

e) I see problems like yours everyday — when doctors gave up, they come to me and expect me to cure them. NO way.

Provided you know what you are coming in here for it is okay with me. Don’t be cheated by people who want to make quick bucks from you.Chris

1 May 2013   Hi Dr. Teo,

Very kind of you for your quick reply.

I have my own reason of coming to see you ASAP and I will explain to you when I see you either on this Friday 3 May 2013 or this Sunday 5 May 2013.

We know there is no cure for this brain cancer and we don’t expect very much as well but just to prolong her life and with your herbs so that she can live a few more year with her strong religious faith, positive attitude and thinking which can create her own strong immune system, control diet and then there is a chance for her to live longer.

At present, she is bed bound and can’t eat by herself, terrible to see my own daughter like this and it is very painful for parents.

Tomorrow morning I will ask my son to book a flight to KL and connecting flight to Penang by Air Asia and hopefully to see Friday or Sunday afternoon as stated in the website or please advise. I think the flight will be on this Friday early morning at 5 am. Perth time is the same as Penang time. My son is studying hard for his university exams now.

There will be no more Avastin infusion till 15 May 2013 and we still have time to stop it. Before that Avastin infusion, she needs to have an MRI Head Scan first and see any improvement on the size of tumours. And if no improvement, then treatment with Avastin infusion will also stop.

Looking forward to see you soon, Dr. Chris Teo.I have been reading your website on newsletters and other material and you are a remarkable Doctor. Please reply. Regards.


Radiotherapy: Recurrence After three years


Temodal shrunk tumour but it grew bigger after that


She had Avastin And She died


At CA Care I am not god

7 May 2013  Dear Dr. Chris Teo,

Very sad to inform you that when I arrived in Australia early Sunday morning (5/5/13), my daughter has passed away. Terrible news for the family. Sincerely thanks. Regards.

Death by chemo is acceptable


Avastin Spreads Cancer and Makes It More Aggressive

Chemotherapy Spreads Cancer and Makes It More Aggressive: Articles From the Internet

Compiled by Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

1.   Perilous Approach: Avastin and Sutent Promote Growth of Breast Cancer Stem Cells

(Note: Many patients in Malaysia have been treated with this very expensive drug)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently revoked approval of Avastin for treating breast cancer. The reversal was in response to clinical trials showing that the drug’s benefit was short-lived, with breast cancer patients quickly relapsing and the cancer becoming more invasive and metastatic.

Cancer treatments designed to block the growth of blood vessels were found to increase the number of cancer stem cells in breast tumors in mice, suggesting a possible explanation for why these drugs don’t lead to longer survival, according to a study by researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

While anti-angiogenic drugs do shrink tumors and slow the time until the cancer progresses, the effect does not last, and the cancer eventually regrows and spreads.

The researchers treated mice with breast cancer using the anti-angiogenesis drugs Avastin (bevacizumab) and Sutent (sunitinib). The researchers found that tumors treated with these drugs developed more cancer stem cells, which fuel a cancer’s growth and spread and are often resistant to standard treatment.

Read more:

2)      Chemotherapy Can Make Cancers More Resistant To Treatment And Even Encourage Them To Grow

  • Chemotherapy treatment for some cancers may actually encourage tumours to grow, researchers have claimed.
  • The treatment triggers the healthy body cells around the tumour to produce a protein that helps the disease to resist treatment.
  • The surprise discovery suggests that some forms of the cancer treatment are doing more harm than good. 

Read more: 

3)      Chemo Does Not Cure: Often It Inflicts Damage and Spreads Cancer

  • German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that Taxol (the “gold standard of chemo”) causes a massive release of cancer cells into circulation.
  • Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of Taxol.

 Read more:

4)      Chemo/Radiation “Therapy” May Fuel Cancer Spread

  • Treatment may fuel cancer’s spread
  • Treating cancer with surgery, chemotherapy or radiation may sometimes cause tumors to spread, researchers say.
  • Tests in mice show that using the chemotherapy drug Doxorubicin or radiation both raised levels of TGF-beta, which in turn helped breast cancer tumors spread to the lung.

Read more:

5)      Chemotherapy Causes Resistance and Spread of Cancer

Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle co-authored a study and published it in Nature Medicine this month detailing how chemotherapy not only produces resistance to chemotherapy by cancerous tumors but also stimulates its growth and metastasis (spread).  Approximately 90% of people with metastatic cancer become resistant to chemotherapy.  This occurs readily in cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, pancreas and colon.

Read more:

6)      Chemo Could Spread Cancer.

new research published in Nature Medicine shows that chemotherapy can actually be extremely counterproductive in treating cancer as it could spur healthy cells to release a compound that actually stimulates cancer growth.

Read more:

7)      Chemotherapy can Backfire and Encourage Cancer Growth

Chemotherapy can backfire by triggering healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth, which could explain why some patients become resistant, a new study suggests.

Read more:

8)      Study Links Cancer’s Ability to Spread with Chemotherapy Resistance

Doctors who treat patients with breast cancer have known that tumors that develop resistance to chemotherapy are also more likely to grow larger and to spread, or metastasize, to other parts of the body.

Read more:

9)       Anti-Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Deadly

… research shows that aggressive treatment (used to shrink or remove even relatively small, slow-growing or encapsulated, harmless tumors) may create a situation where the entire body is riddled with highly aggressive cancers.

This study, published in the January 17, 2012 issue of Cancer Cell,finds that a group of little-explored cells that are part of every primary cancerous tumor likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis.

Read more:

10)   Anti-Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Deadly

  • Just imagine you were diagnosed with a cancerous tumor, and your doctor told you that his/her proposed treatment could reduce the size of your tumor by 30 percent, but at the same time increase your chances of developing secondary tumors by a whopping 300 percent!
  • That is exactly what is demonstrated in recent research (at Harvard and MD Anderson Cancer Centers), and published in conventional Oncology Journals! The history of conventional anti-cancer therapies is replete with cases where the treatment turned out to be far more devastating than the disease itself.

Read more:

11)   Exposed: Deadly Cancer Drugs Make Cancer Worse and Kill PatientsMore Quickly

  • Cancer drugs, pushed by many drug companies as the only ‘scientific’ method of combating cancer alongside chemotherapy, have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly.
  • The findings come after research was conducted on the cancer drugs at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Sold at a premium price to cancer sufferers, it turns out these drugs are not only ineffective but highly dangerous.

Read more:

12)   Breaking News: Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Aggressive And Deadly

…….scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis).

·         A study just published in the January 17 issue of the journal Cancer Cell concludes that anti-angiogenic therapies (which shrink cancer by cutting off tumors’ blood supply) may be killing the body’s natural defense against cancer by destroying pericyte cells that likely serve as important gatekeepers against cancer progression and metastasis.

Read more:

13)   Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse.


  • A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery.

While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Read more:

14)   Chemotherapy Backfires – Causes Healthy Cells To Feed Growth Of Cancer Tumors

 This protein,dubbed “WNT16B,” is taken up by nearby cancer cells, causing them to “grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He’s the co-author of the study that documented this phenomenon, published in Nature Medicine. This protein, it turns out, explains why cancer tumors grow more aggressively following chemotherapy treatments. In essence, chemotherapy turns healthy cells into WNT16B factories which churn out this “activator” chemical that accelerates cancer tumor growth.

Read more:

15)          Chemo and Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant

The very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one.

Read more:

16)         Beating Cancer With Chemotherapy And Better Drugs: Junk Science?

  (1) The Department of Oncology at North Sydney Cancer Centre in 2004 published a report evaluating chemotherapy over the years and concluded that ‘it only made a minor contribution to survival’. The figures they came up with were 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in America.

(2) The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle that concluded ‘Chemotherapy can cause cancer to return’. They said CAUSE – apparently chemotherapy can cause healthy cells to produce a protein WNT16B and this is taken up by cancer cells – it helps them re-grow and even protects them from the next round of chemotherapy.

(3)  A ‘landmark study’ from their Cambridge Institute showed there were 10 different ‘clusters’ of breast cancer types. ‘No longer does one size fit all’ they cried.

 (4) Three research studies reported on the existence of Cancer Stem Cells at the heart of tumours. A couple of UK cancer centres (Bart’s Hospital and the Blizzard Institute, London) have even isolated these nasty little cells. Apparently, if you don’t kill them off, they can re-grow. In one of the three studies (from the University of Texas South Western Medical Centre), there were statements such as ‘Cancer Stem cells are in charge of tumours’, and the lead researcher, Dr Louis Parada and the other researchers added, ‘In the past we have tried to get rid of the entire stew of cancer cells. But shrinking a tumour by 50% is irrelevant. No current drugs tackle cancer stem cells.

 (5)  Perhaps the final words should therefore go to Duke’s University Medical Centre in Carolina who in their 2012 report concluded that ‘Patients with cancer are largely being mislead into believing that the drug they are being offered is somehow going to cure them’.

Read more:


By Yeong Sek Yee and Khadijah Shaari

Is conventional cancer treatment really fatally flawed? This seems to be the opinion of Dr Margaret I. Cuomo, MD who wrote the article “Why Cancer treatment is Fatally Flawed” (Copy of article attached or view article at the following link):

Curious to find out more, we subsequently bought the book, “A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER” by Dr Margaret Cuomo, a board – certified radiologist (more details at the end of this article).

World wiithout cancer2

We would like to summarize some of the main points of Chapter 4 of this book which is surprisingly entitled “CUT, BURN AND POISON: A LOOK AT TODAY’S TREATMENT OPTIONS.” The following points sum up Dr Cuomo’s disappointment in conventional treatment (in her own words): –

a)      For most of the 20th Century, we have used 3 basic approaches to treat cancer: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. With experimentation and practice… some modalities may have improved, yet…our results remain entirely inadequate. In crude fashion, we are still trying to cut, poison, and burn our way through cancer (pages 56/57)

b)      One cancer expert has called our approach to cancer “damage control”. We deploy the heavy artillery to kill as much of the cancer as we can, hoping that it doesn’t escape our weaponry. However, all too often it does (page 10).

c)      When it comes to treating cancer, we seem to be in a holding pattern (page13) Cancer has turned out to be far more clever than we imagined… it is able to develop resistance even to highly toxic drugs… it has an uncanny ability to outwit the therapeutics sent to inhibit its growth (pages 12/13).

What are Dr Cuomo’s views on cut, poison, and burn (or alternatively known as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation)?

a)      Cutting : The Surgical Option          

  • Sometimes, surgery isn’t an option. Tumors may be inoperable because they are weakened in an area that’s almost impossible to reach, or a patient may not be strong enough to withstand surgery (page 64).
  • Even if someone does undergo surgery, there is no way to be sure it has been successful. Although every cancer patient yearns to hear the words “we got it all,” cancer has the capacity to work in nearby tissues, even where a clear margin seems to have been obtained, or to spread undetected through the blood or lymph nodes (pages 64/65)
  • Today’s surgery may be safer than it was, but in many cases, it still doesn’t cure the disease. Cutting out organs and tissues does little to fight cancers peripatetic capacity to travel through the blood to colonize other parts of the body (page 13).

b)      Poison: The Limits of Anti Cancer Drugs

  • Pharmaceuticals, collectively called systemic therapy “include 3 major groups : chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and hormonal therapy (page 65).
  • Whether administered as neo-adjuvant therapy (before surgery or radiation) or adjuvant (after surgery or radiation), physicians sometimes avoid the technical language and simply call them “poison” – what we want the drug to do is kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, they can kill normal cells as well… “Chemotherapy is like taking a stick and beating a dog to get rid of fleas” (page 65).
  • Chemotherapy can be especially grueling, with many patients receiving one drug after another. “Usually the first treatment regimen works and then it stops working after a certain point” says Dr Nicholas Vogelzang of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (page 57).
  • The toxic effects of chemotherapy are not limited to cancer cells. Every drug has its own package of debilitating and sometimes bizarre side effects. Some of these occur during treatment and immediately afterwards, some occur five or more years later (page 67).
  • According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, late effects can strike just about anywhere in the body – including the heart, lungs, brain and spinal cord, bones and joints, endocrine and digestive system. Even dental and vision problems can occur (page 68).
  • When it comes to chemotherapy, no patient emerges unscathed, and the benefits may not last. If cancer cells became resistant to chemotherapy, as often happens over time, they begin to multiply again. The question for patients is always whether the gain in longevity will ultimately outweigh the brutality of the treatment (pages 69/70).
  • Even drugs used to treat the side effects of chemotherapy have been linked to secondary cancers (page 69).
  • Most of the drugs we have to fight solid tumors influence a specific part of a cellular cycle and have only a transient effect. They don’t stop the progress of a tumor indefinitely. A slow growing tumor is still growing and is perhaps beginning to spread undetected elsewhere in the body (page102).
  • Lastly, many drug therapies are not even studied on the basis of their impact on overall survival, but rather on their impact on progression-free survival or the maintenance of stable disease. There is a big difference (page 101).

c)      Burn: Radiation Therapy

  • Although we have gotten much better at aiming radiation directly at a tumor, we can’t target it with the precision necessary to burn only cancer cells and leave healthy ones intact. That means that this therapy, too, is damaging (page 75).
  • Months or even years after radiation, chronic side effects can surface. With radiation, as with chemotherapy, the list of potential problems is lengthy (page77).
  • Most troubling is the possibility that other cancers will emerge, often near the original site, long after receiving radiation therapy…children who survived cancer were 15 times more likely to die of a subsequent cancer later in life (page 79).
  • Though the young are most vulnerable, secondary cancers can develop as a result of radiation at any age.

Flawed Clinical Trial Design:

Besides cancer treatments being fatally flawed, clinical trial designs are also flawed in the first place (page138). According to Dr Cuomo:

  • Good medicine is built on clinical trials in which promising scientific discoveries are tested in human beings (page 138).
  • Too often, clinical trials fail to discover who benefit from a therapy and who will be harmed (page140)….we need to be doing the studies that will tell us which patients require chemotherapy (page 141).
  • ….because we don’t know the profile of those who will gain, almost all patients routinely get chemotherapy……that translates into giving therapies that fail 95% of the time in order to find that 3 to 5% of responsive patients (page 141).

Some other pertinent remarks of Dr Cuomo that are particularly succinct: –

  •  The fact that we have made so little progress after a century of using the same basic techniques surely suggests that we aren’t taking the right approach. The problem? “Even one cancer cell can lead to death” says James Holland, MD a distinguished professor of neoplastic diseases at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Relapse is always a possibility until we can guarantee that there are no cancer cells in the body (page 79).
  • When death can come from a single cell that successfully eludes our most brutal attempts to cut, poison, and burn it the sword of Damocles hangs over every patient’s head (page 59).
  • We should differentiate between drugs that make a small difference and drugs that make no difference at all. A lot of cancer drugs are not worth very much in terms of prolongation of life (page 110).
  • Meanwhile, our continuing emphasis on producing, prescribing, and paying for one marginally useful cancer therapy after another suggests that we are in the wrong playing field (page 124).

In conclusion, when Dr Cuomo commented in The Final Word (page 244) that, when President Nixon launched “a great Crusade against cancer in 1971, he said that a long shadow of fear darkens every corner of the earth” So it is today. We need to rekindle the effort to eradicate cancer that began four decades ago (page 245).

Actually, it makes us (our personal views) wonder, whether cancer treatments are really flawed or is it made to be flawed? We can send a human to the moon but we cannot find a cure for cancer? Or is it that the cancer industry does not intend to find a cure for cancer? The answer to these questions can found on page 125 of this book (which your doctor will not recommend you to read)…it says: “the drug companies are too greedy, the FDA is too slow; doctors are rich and    raking it in.”

Also, without question (Dr Cuomo’s views), fighting cancer remains highly profitable. The drug companies have all the incentive to keep their research focused on developing powerful therapies, rather than on eliminating cancer altogether (page 66).

(Yes, a cure for cancer will never be found and will never be allowed to be found!! The cancer industry does not want you to be cured and they do not want you to die so soon either….that is their window of opportunity to rake in the money. That is our views. We welcome your views.)

ISBN NO: 978-1-60961-885-8 (published October 2012)

Dr. Margaret Cuomo, the author of “A World without Cancer,” is a board-certified radiologist and an attending physician in diagnostic radiology at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. for many years. Specializing in body imaging, involving CT, Ultrasound, MRI and interventional procedures, much of her practice was dedicated to the diagnosis of cancer and AIDS.


Are there other doctors/oncologists/cancer researchers who share the same views as Dr Cuomo that conventional cancer treatment is fatally flawed, ineffective, too much collateral damage, etc? Yes, there are, some are listed and summarized below for your enlightenment. These are books which your doctors/oncologists will not recommend you to read:

1) THE COMPASSIONATE ONCOLOGIST by Dr James W. Forsythe, MD, HMD. Read why Dr Forsythe left conventional oncology and find out why conventional cancer treatment is…often it is akin to entering a dark room with a handful of darts and hoping to hit the centre of the dart-board blindly (page 127).

2) NATURAL STRATEGIES FOR CANCER PATIENTS by Dr Russell Blaylock, MD, a               neuroscientist and neurosurgeon.He was the Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi. Read Chapter 3…Chemotherapy: Poisoning Cancer (and You) in  which:

  • Dr Blaylock bluntly revealed that……“The probability that chemotherapy make tumours more aggressive, inhibit the immune system and damage vital organs were reviewed in the medical literature as far back as 1987… In many instances, chemotherapy makes the cancer more aggressive and more likely to metastasize”. (pages 78-79)

3) THE END OF ILLNESS by Dr David Argus, MD, an oncologist and Professor of Medicine.  Find out why he also left conventional oncology:

  • When cancer is exposed to chemotherapy, drug-resistant mutants can escape. In other words, just as resistant strains of bacteria can result from antibiotic use, anticancer drugs can produce resistant cancer cells (page 37).
  • The number of mutations shoots up exponentially as a cancer patient is treated with drugs such as chemotherapy, which inherently causes more mutations (page 39).
  • When chemotherapy drugs bind to DNA, they can cause cancer just as radiation can cause cancer by mutating the genome. This helps explain why survivors of breast cancer, for instance, can suffer  from leukemia later in life due to the chemotherapy they received to cure their breast cancer (page 39).

4) MONEY DRIVEN MEDICINE: TESTS AND TREATMENTS THAT DON’T WORK by Dr         David K. Cundiff, an Assistant Professor in medical oncology at the Harbor-UCLA Medical          Center in Los Angeles.” Dr. Cundiff later left oncology and became a hospice doctor because:

  • “I would not recommend chemotherapy if I did not think that the benefits outweighed the risks.” I was so out of step with the other practicing medical oncologists that it became clear that I could not make a living with such a conservative treatment philosophy. Dr Cundiff just could not stomach what he saw and practiced.

5) FIGHTING CANCER WITH KNOWLEDGE & HOPE by Dr Richard C. Frank, MD, an            oncologist, gives an explicit explanation as to why chemotherapy may not work for you           (pages 188/190) and why targeted therapies have fallen short of its lofty goals (pages            175/184)

6) LIFE OVER CANCER by Dr Keith Block, an integrative oncologist, whose view that            conventional cancer treatment is fatally flawed is reflected in the following statement on            page 304:

  • “Cancer’s ability to continually adapt is one reason why chemotherapy and radiation are not more effective against cancer: the treatments also produce free radicals that support the disease process, allowing any cells that survive the barrage of radiation or chemotherapy to thrive.”

7)INTEGRATIVE ONCOLOGY by Dr Donald Abrams, MD and Dr Andrew Weill, both          Professors of Clinical Medicine and oncologists….wrote on the toxicities of conventional               treatment and…..”the well known potential to cause mutations and malignant               transformation” (page 8).

8) WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANCER by Dr Robert                        Buckman, MD, a medical oncologist and Associate Professor, University of Toronto.                       In Chapter 9, he wondered…..”With so many breakthroughs, why is there no Progress?”                        Very thought provoking.

9) THE ENZYME FACTOR by Dr Hiromi Shinya, MD, a Clinical Professor of Surgery at                       the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Chief of the Endoscopy Unit of Beth Israel                       Hospital in New York.  Dr Shinya firmly believes anti-cancer drugs do not cure cancer…                      Read to find out why.

10) HOW WE DO HARM by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, MD, the chief medical and executive                        Vice president of the American Cancer Society, and currently serves as Professor of                         Hematology, oncology, medicine, and epidemiology of Emory University and a fellow in                           Medical Oncology at the National Cancer Institute, USA. You must really read the book                        to find out how oncologists/doctors do harm…..contrary to the first precepts of medical                         ethics taught in medical school….”FIRST, DO NO HARM”

To conclude this article, allow us to quote Dr Guy Faquet, a retired hematologist / oncologist, in his book “THE WAR ON CANCER…AN ANATOMY OF FAILURE, A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE”:

  • “medical treatment of cancer for most of the past century was like trying to fix an automobile without any knowledge of the internal combustion engine or, for that matter, even the ability to look under the hood” (page 63).


Dr. James Forsythe: Why I Abandoned Conventional Oncology


Who is Dr. James Forsythe?

Dr James Forsythe earned his MD from the University of California at San Francisco. He is a board-certified oncologist and also a board-certified homeopath which makes for an interesting mix of Western and alternative medicines. The combination of the two allows Dr. Forsythe to be extremely creative in his approach to cancer. He is an integrative oncologist providing the best of what both worlds have to offer. Today, Dr. Forsythe enjoys a successful career as a medical oncologist who utilizes alternative treatments

In the Introduction chapter of his book Dr. Forsythe explained why I abandoned conventional oncology. Here is what Dr. Forsythe wrote:

  • Oncologists usually dismiss any anecdotes about miraculous remissions and cancer cures, even though most of them have encountered cases of remission they can’t explain.
  • Not only do conventionally trained cancer specialists not want to hear about (such) case … they are hostile toward any physician (like me) who takes an interest in these anecdotes.
  • We knew that chemo was killing good cells, but we just hope it was killing enough bad cells too.
  • All of the patients became horribly sick from the treatment and most of them relapsed within a few years.
  • It was during my training at UC San Francisco that I discovered how arbitrary the cancer treatment protocols we were learning had become. Someone higher up in the field would get an idea that we should prescribe a particular drug twice a week for this or that cancer and it should be the standard dose.
  • Many times there was no scientific evidence behind what they were saying. Because we were trainees, we had to follow their exact protocol, whether it was evidence based or not.
  • And despite the lack of evidence, these physicians and administrators were declaring the protocol to be an exact science, a sort of gold standard for medical practice. The obvious shortcomings bothered me a lot.
  • When I attended oncology conventions there would be an exercise in which a cancer case would be presented and everyone would vote how they would treat that particular case. There was never a consensus about treatment.
  • Of the specialists present, 60 percent might say one type of drug should be used, while 40 percent voted otherwise.
  • I would think to myself: How can this be? These physicians were all oncologists. They should have been on the same page. But they never were; unfortunately for cancer patients, they still aren’t.
  • More than 100 cancer drugs are out there today (some in use without FDA approval), and there is no consensus on which drugs to use, what dose to  use, how long to give them, or which types of cancer respond best to those drugs.
  • All these decisions are made arbitrarily, turning the patients into virtual guinea pigs.
  • An article written in the Journal of Oncology in 2004 noted … the overall survival rate for patients with Stage 4 cancer receiving chemotherapy was only 2.1% in the United States.
  • This finding showed me that the over-treatment approach and the treatment protocols using so many toxins constituted a failing strategy.
  • Even if you were lucky enough to be one of the two out of a hundred who survived, you would probably have chemo brain symptoms, you might have heart and liver problems, and you would probably experience constant pain and the loss of feelings in your feet and toes. These were just accepted side effects.
  • Oncologists didn’t want to think about this dismal 2 percent survival rate after five years. Understandably, they didn’t want to acknowledge that they were doing any harm to their patients.
  • What further disturbed me was the astounding escalation in patient treatment costs, especially when they were being directed to use toxic or ineffective cancer drugs following surgery.
  • These high-dose drugs are expensive and often problematic. One lung cancer drug was on the market for almost five years and cost patients $25,000 (approximately RM 75,000) a year, based on them taking one pill a day, yet studies found the drug to be no more effective than if the patients had taken a placebo sugar pill every day.
  • This amounted to a royal fleecing of the people who had been rendered vulnerable and fearful by the prospect of a painful death.
  • Those individuals who were lucky enough to survive Stage 4 cancers often suffered from many of the symptoms of toxic chemotherapy …. The quality of their lives, even though they may have survived cancer, was oftentimes dismal.
  • I found myself wondering if survival was worth the price. There was a morbid saying at some of our oncology meetings: We cure the cancer, but the patient died.
  • They labeled my method a pseudo-science, something that isn’t evidence based. Because they didn’t learn about it in medical school, they considered it mere quackery.
  • The bottom line is that they simply didn’t – and many still don’t – have the courage to deviate from Big Pharma’s indoctrination and drug-obsessed dogma.

2 Chemo-is-odd-UK-doctor

1 Chemo-worthless

Chemotherapy SPREADS and MAKES cancer more AGGRESSIVE

Can this statement be true? Is it a hoax? I would NOT dare say or write such a thing about chemotherapy lest I would be accused of trying to scare you away from chemotherapy – the gold standard treatment of cancer today.  That is the way it is with human nature – if you say something not nice about something then you are the enemy of that something – there is no middle ground.

Unfortunately, my daily reading of medical literature makes it difficult for me to keep quiet or play deaf and dumb about what I have read.

When patients go and see their oncologists for their cancer, they generally have high hope but at the same time are just as anxious. Some patients dare ask their oncologists: Can chemo cure me?  Others do not have a clue what to say or ask . They take it for granted that doctors know best – why ask questions? For those who asked, what answers do they get? Probably these:  There is a 95 percent chance; or Let’s see after three cycles of chemo; or Cannot cure, but can control the cancer from spreading; or You must do chemo to make the cancer less aggressive, or With chemo you have better quality of life!

The answers provide much comfort and assurance to patients. Indeed that is what patients want to hear! And then they play along with their oncologists.  But do you ever realize that such an answer is just a PR exercise rather than a statement of fact based on scientific evidence? With each passing day as more and more scientific evidence are being reported, such answers seem to be very leaky.

Let me ask you.

  • If you know that chemo CANNOT cure your cancer, would you still undergo chemotherapy?
  • If chemotherapy can make your cancer worse and makes it spread more aggressively, would you go for chemotherapy? 

Some will say NO. But some will say YES, because what choice have I got? For example, read this e-mail below:

14 June 2012: Dear Chris,

The doctor (looked experienced and kind) suggested Gemzar and Cisplatin for six cycles. He did not recommend radio because it is not solving the root cause of the growth (previous radio sites also growing). Honestly, I’m at loss because I also frightened of chemo after so many awful stories. Finally, we decided to try out 1 or 2 cycles and monitor my husband’s condition, scheduled to start next week. I know this sounds stupid. However, there does not seem to be other avenue to slow down this growth. We still plan to continue with herbs long term- but can we have herbs during chemo? Thanks and regards.

30 January 2013: Dear Chris,

My husband had passed away last November 2012.  After two cycles of chemo, he experienced leg weakness. He stopped chemo after that. Then he was paralysed starting from the legs, and moving upwards to both hands, and finally his breathing muscle was affected. He died due to breathing difficulties. In any case, I would like to thank you for the help rendered. Thanks and regards,

After two cycles of chemo and the patient was dead?  This is what I always tell patients:  It is your life and you have to make your own decision without me having to influence you. My responsibility is to provide honest information. You can ask your oncologists about the pros of chemo. But it is unlikely that they tell you in detail the cons of chemotherapy. Here, we tell you about the dark story of chemo because they are equally important although less talked about. Nevertheless you need to know them if you want to make a wise and empowered decision. But be reminded that by doing this we appear to be anti-chemo. We are not – at times we do urge you to go for chemotherapy.

Dr. Morton Walker (in Cancer’s Cause, Cancer’s Cure) wrote: I was astounded at how distorted the physicians’ presentations were when they discussed the side effects of their treatments. The doctors appeared to become almost like used-car salesmen in a pitch for their surgery, radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy.  I know something about medical practices and oncology from my work as a medical researcher and as a former practicing podiatrist. In my opinion, the information the oncologists gave my fiancee was hardly an honest assessment of the relative benefits and risks associated with the recommended treatments. 

Let me ask you to reflect on the following tragic story and see if you can learn anything from it.

Kathy (not real name) is a 44-year old lady. A CT scan done on 8 November 2010 showed a mass in her right lung. The doctor suspected malignancy, Stage 3B. A biopsy confirmed lung cancer, positive for EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor), a case where taking oral drug, Iressa is said to be effective. Kathy started to take Iressa for seven months.  With Iressa the mass in her lung started to shrink until the size could not be measured.

In August 2011, Kathy’s condition deteriorated. The lung mass which had apparently disappeared after taking Iressa, had grown back to twice its original size. Kathy was told that her lung cancer was at Stage 4B.

The lung mass was again tested for its sensitivity to Iressa. Unfortunately this time it was negative for EGFR. Iressa would be useless for Kathy this time around. Kathy was asked to undergo chemotherapy.

In November 2011, Kathy went to China for further medical treatment.  Kathy underwent the following treatments:

1. Chemotherapy, a procedure called Transarterial Chemical Infusion (TACI).

2.  Cryosurgery (also called cryoablation).

3. Radioactive iodine seed implantation.

Kathy was told that she had a 60:40 chance of success – 60 percent that she would be cured by the treatments and 40 percent chance that the treatments would fail.

Kathy made a last visit to China in March 2012. She was told she was unable to receive anymore chemotherapy because the tumour had grown in between her ribs.

Kathy was asked to take Iressa (again? But she had taken Iressa before from December 2010 to June 2011). Kathy declined Iressa.

Kathy was asked to return to China for a checkup in June 2012 but she did not return. She did a PET scan in Jakarta. Unfortunately the results showed progressive disease and the cancer had spread to her bones, lymph nodes, liver, etc.

This effectively means the treatments in China had failed.

Back home in Jakarta, Kathy continued to receive radiotherapy to her backbone. She also received chemotherapy. A CT scan in October 2012 showed that the tumour had grown in size. She stopped chemotherapy.

Unfortunately after the radiation to her backbone, her right breast became hard, painful and developed rashes.

Kathy had probably reached the end of the road and did not know what else to do. She said: Now I only take supplements and PRAY.  Through a friend she got to know CA Care and came to Penang on 12 November 2012.

Ask the following questions:

  1. Iressa made the tumour disappear for a while – seven months. Does any cancer patient ever been told or know a complete story? Is there no evidence to show that shrinkage after treatment is just temporary and meaningless? If you have been reading our stories here, you know that there are many similar cases!
  2. Why did the cancer come back after its disappearance? Probably you will get the answer in the later part of this article.
  3. The lung tissue that was once positive for EGFR had then turned negative for EGFR – why? Is this not about the complexity, uncertainty and messiness of life that experts generally fail to see. Probably you will also get a scientific answer to this problem in the later part of this article.
  4. Kathy went for more treatments in China with the prospect that she would have a 60 percent chance of cure, in spite of the earlier failure. But it did not turn they way she or her doctor expected. She had MORE treatments and she ended up with MORE cancer.
  5. Can it be true that chemo and radiation encourage more cancer? Make the cancer more aggressive and spread more? Read further to know. It is up to you to make your own conclusion after that.

Research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle, Washington, USA.

A  research report, published in Nature Medicine 18: 1359-1368 (2012) has this title: Treatment-induced damage to the tumour microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT 16B. It was written by Yu Sun et al. – a team of eight researchers led by Peter Nelson of the Division of Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research. )  From this paper we learn that:

  1. Acquired resistance to anti-cancer treatment is a problem in cancer treatment.
  2. Cancer tissue microenvironments can influence the success or failure of treatments.
  3. WNT 16B in the prostate tumour microenvironment promoted tumour cell survival and disease progression.

Many articles are written in lay language following the release this study. This is to allow you and me understand the implications of the above scientific finding.

Read this article written by Jonathan Benson:  Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud –  tumors grow faster after chemo! (24 January 2012:

 The Daily News of 6 August 2012 had this heading, Shock study: Chemotherapy can backfire, make cancer worse by triggering tumor growth (

Anthony Gucciardi wrote this article, Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse (7 August 2012,

Let me summarise what these authors wrote.

  • A team of researchers from Washington state had a giant Oops! moment recently when it accidentally uncovered the deadly truth about chemotherapy while investigating why prostate cancer cells are so difficult to eradicate using conventional treatment methods. 
  • Chemotherapy does not actually treat or cure cancer at all, but rather fuels the growth and spread of cancer cells, making them much harder to stamp out once chemotherapy has already been initiated.

Jonathan Benson said:

  • You might call it the smoking gun that proves, once and for all, the complete fraud of the conventional cancer industry. Not only is chemotherapy, the standard method of cancer treatment today, a complete flop, based on the findings, but it is actually detrimental for patients with cancer. 
  • According to the study, chemotherapy induces healthy cells to release WNT 16B, a protein that helps promote cancer cell survival and growth. 
  • Chemotherapy also definitively damages the DNA of healthy cells. 
  • This combined action of healthy cell destruction and cancer cell promotion technically makes chemotherapy more of a cancer-causing protocol than a cancer-treatment protocol. 
  • Avoiding chemotherapy improves health outcomes. For all intents and purposes … the entire process of   chemotherapy is completely worthless, and is actually highly detrimental for cancer patients. Anyone searching for a real cure will want to avoid chemotherapy, in other words, and pursue an alternate route.

Co-author Peter Nelson from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center explained:

  • WNT 16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.
  • Completely unexpected – our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells … may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics.
  • In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Deadly Cancer Drugs Make Cancer Worse and Kill Patients More Quickly

This finding should not come as a big shock really. Just before this discovery, medical researchers have also reported that certain cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors spread and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

Vesseline Cooke et al. (and a team of 15 researchers headed by Raghu Kalluri of the Matrix Biology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, wrote an article: Pericyte Depletion Results in Hypoxia-Associated Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition and Metastasis Mediated by Met Signaling Pathway. This was published in Cancer Cell . (

  • Researchers examined drugs such as imatanib (Gleevec, a leukemia drug) and sunitinib (Sutent, a drug for gastrointestinal tumors and kidney cancer) found that these drugs may initially reduce tumor size but afterwards cause tumors to spread aggressivelymeaning  the tumors can come back much stronger and grow much larger than their original size.
  • In the study the researchers induced anti-angiogenesis in mice genetically engineered to have breast cancer. When they induced anti-angiogenesis, they saw a 30 percent decrease in the volume of each tumor over 25 days. But the number of tumors that had metastasized to the lungs tumors tripled compared to untreated control mice.
  • Kalluri and his team performed a previous study in humans that found breast cancer patients with fewer cells called pericytes, which support the walls of veins, were less likely to survive their cancer. It turns out those are the cells damaged by some anti-angiogenesis drugs. 
  • By studying the mice they found that those pericytes are important because without them tumors become weak and leaky. 
  • And that causes cancer cells to launch survival mechanisms: the researchers found a fivefold increase in factors inside the pericyte-lacking cells that promote cell migration and growth.

In an article on 19 January 2012: Exposed: Deadly Cancer Drugs Make Cancer Worse and Kill Patients More Quickly Anthony Gucciardi wrote:

  • Cancer drugs, pushed by many drug companies as the only scientific method of combating cancer alongside chemotherapy, have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly.
  • Sold at a premium price to cancer sufferers, it turns out these drugs are not only ineffective but highly dangerous.

Kristen Philipkoski, on 17 January 2012 ( wrote this article How Cancer Drugs Make Cancer Worse and Kill Patients.

  • You’d think that a tumor shrinking would be considered good news for anyone suffering from cancer. But maybe not. Scientists have found that a type of cancer treatment aimed at shrinking tumors can actually make them spread more efficiently and aggressively and kill patients quicker. 

I spoke to Dr. Raghu Kalluri, one of the study’s authors and chief of the matrix biology division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He said:

  • Focusing on tumor growth, the treatment results looked good. Tumors shrunk. But if you looked at the big picture, making tumors smaller didn’t mean the cancer was being controlled. It was actually spreading. 
  • Whatever manipulations we’re doing to tumors can inadvertently do something to increase the tumor numbers to become more metastatic, which is what kills patients at the end of the day.

I’ve had several family members who died at the hands of cancer shortly after the good news that doctors had shrunk the tumor! Was that tumor shrinkage actually what killed them?

Dr.  Kalluri said:

  • It’s possible. If cancer drugs are used randomly against all kinds of cancer without thinking about all the biology of the tumor, it could lead to a poor prognosis. It’s important for doctors to remember that tumors contain lots of types of cells, and they’re not all bad.
  • Seventy to 80 percent of cells in a breast tumor are non-cancer cells.  Are they all bad? Some of them are there to protect us.
    • Cancer drugs that shrink tumours by cutting off their blood supply may end up helping them to spread.
    • Drugs such as Glivec and Sutent reduce the size of tumours but could also make them more aggressive and mobile.
    • A little-studied group of cells called pericytes that provide structural support to blood vessels act as gatekeepers to pen in cancer.
    • Pericytes are wiped out by some advanced cancer drugs that prevent the growth of tumour-nourishing blood vessels. As a result tumours find it easier to spread around the body.
    • Tests on mice showed that both Glivec and Sutent depleted pericytes by 70 per cent while metastasis rates tripled. They saw a 30 per cent decrease in tumour volumes over 25 days, but also a three-fold increase in the number of secondary tumours growing in the animals’ lungs.

Leon  Watson, on 18 January 2012, wrote this article: Cancer drugs that aim to shrink tumours by cutting blood supply can actually help them SPREAD ( explained further:

To see how relevant the findings were to patients, the scientists went on to examine 130 human breast cancer samples.

  • Samples with low numbers of pericytes in tumour blood vessel networks correlated with the most deeply invasive cancers, distant cancer spread, and five and 10-year survival rates lower than 20 per cent.

Lead researcher Professor Raghu Kalluri, from Harvard Medical School in Boston said:

  • But when you looked at the whole picture, inhibiting tumour vessels was not controlling cancer progression. The cancer was, in fact, spreading.
  • Some assumptions about cancer must now be revisited. We must go back and audit the tumour and find out which cells play a protective role versus which cells promote growth and aggression. Not everything is black and white. There are some cells inside a tumour that are actually good in certain contexts. 

S. L. Baker, 19 January 2012, wrote Breaking news: cancer drugs make tumors more aggressive and deadly (

  • When natural health advocates warn against mainstream medicine’s arsenal of weapons used to fight cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, their concerns often revolve around how these therapies can weaken and damage a person’s body in numerous ways. 
  • But scientists are finding other reasons to question some of these therapies. It turns out that while chemotherapies may kill or shrink tumors in the short term, they may actually be causing malignancies to grow more deadly in the long term. 
  • Scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body ( 
  • And now comes the news that a little-explored specific cell type, the pericyte, found in what is called the microenvironment of a cancerous tumor actually may halt cancer progression and metastasis. And by destroying these cells, some anti-cancer therapies may inadvertently be making cancer more aggressive as well as likely to spread and kill.

 These results are quite provocative and will influence clinical programs designed to target tumor angiogenesis, Ronald A. DePinho, president of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, said in a press statement. These impressive studies will inform and refine potential therapeutic approaches for many cancers.

An article in has an article entitled Truth About Chemotherapy. It makes a good conclusion to our discussion.

  • Chemotherapy drugs cannot differentiate between healthy cells and cancer cells, and attack both with the same vigor.
  • Scientists have found that non-cancerous cells that were damaged by chemo drugs release a certain protein, WNT 16B, in high quantities. WNT 16B secreted by healthy cells damaged by chemo drugs interact with nearby cancer cells, increasing their survival rate and, more disturbingly, making them more resilient to other treatments.
  • Studies show that chemotherapy drugs can cause DNA mutations. Scientists suspect that these DNA mutations may be passed to a patient’s future generations as well. In other words, chemotherapy drugs may negatively affect a patient’s entire hereditary line.   
  • Researchers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Boston, studied the effect of cancer drugs and found that they caused cancer cells to metastasize aggressively.
  • In their findings, scientists noted that cancer drugs, Sutent and Gleevec , caused cancer cells to metastasize. The size of the tumor may initially reduce when these drugs are administered. However, these drugs make cancer cells metastasize aggressively over time.

Is it time we look beyond chemotherapy? Maybe yes. More studies should be performed to better understand the role of natural substances in cancer treatment.

Recent studies show that cancer drugs are not only ineffective in treating cancer, but that they cause the tumor to metastasize aggressively, and, thus, decrease the lifespan of cancer patients. Also chemotherapy is astronomically expensive, leaving many patients or their families financially ruined while the drug companies continue to profit.

Do your research before you commit to being poisoned with chemotherapy.

The Cancer Odyssey: Discovering Truth and Inspiration on the Way to Wellness

Cancer Odyssey

If you are brave enough to leave behind everything familiar and comforting… and set out on a truth-seeking journey, and if you are truly willing to regard everything that happens to you on that journey as a clue,
and if you accept everyone you meet along the way as a teacher,
and if you are prepared … to face … some very difficult realities about yourself …
then truth will not be withheld from you. (From the movie Eat, Pray, Love).


The Author: Margeret B. Bermel, MBA

She lives on Long Island with her husband and cats. She graduated from Marywood University with a B.A. in Psychology and a minor in Music. She is an MBA from Hofstra University, a First Degree Black Belt, and an avid golfer.

In 2009, Margeret was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and her world suddenly changed.  She started to chronicle her discoveries.  She stumbled upon the dirty secret of the cancer industry:  chemotherapy does not work.  As her research progressed to the discovery of the truths about conventional treatment, she also opened up to the inspiration that life offers to us all on a daily basis, if only we pay attention.  She started blogging about her discoveries.  The book unfolded as her journey unfolded.

Her Book

In October 2009, the surgeon leaned over me in the recovery room and shouted, “It was malignant.”  My husband then leaned over me and whispered gently, but with conviction, “We WILL grow old together.”  That day was the start of my journey through the labyrinth of the cancer industry.  The Cancer Odyssey: Discovering Truth and Inspiration on the Way to Wellness chronicles my journey, searching both for truth about the cancer industry, and for inspiration about the purpose of life.  

  • This is a book of survival, a book of encouragement to show others in this situation how to live and how not to die.
  • This book is about how to be brave enough to resist the pressure of the medical “standard of care”, how to explain to well-meaning family and friends that you are going against conventional medicine, how to be open enough to find inspiration in life and to achieve happiness.  This is the only way to survive cancer.
  • This book is a blueprint to help others to overcome the fear of cancer and to return to wellness, by finding their own truth and their own inspiration.
  • This book offers an approach to dealing with cancer from a new viewpoint – to empower people to challenge the medical advice of chemotherapy that most people have unquestioningly accepted as the only option.  It encourages people to question and research, and to take their health care decisions into their own hands, because survival depends upon making the right decision.
  • The author is a survivor by choice, sheer luck, profound faith, and determination.  She is an ordinary person who was called upon to do the extraordinary:  overcome cancer and live to tell the story.

Why She Wrote this Book

  • To raise enough reasonable doubt about the motives and ineffectiveness of the cancer industry in approaching this disease so that people will start to question the “standard of care” treatment—chemotherapy.
  • To challenge the readers to suspend their belief system in the traditional approach to cancer.  At one time or another, everyone will hear a doctor tell them that they or a loved one have cancer and that they need chemotherapy.
  • To help others who suddenly find themselves caught in the same situation that I suddenly found myself in over a year ago:  the cancer trap.
  • My mission is to encourage people to ask questions and receive answers that are satisfactory to them.  I think it is important to both listen to your gut and to learn about various options.  I am not a medical practitioner and I cannot offer any medical advice or recommendations.  I can only encourage people to find the treatment that is right for them.  Although I am a strong proponent of natural treatments, in some circumstances the conventional treatments may be appropriate.  My intention is to help people set their fear aside to enable them to approach this challenge with the strength to ask the questions that need to be asked, in your situation, “How will this treatment help ME?

 The Message She Wants You to Know

  • We must stop going along with the conventional “inside the box” thinking, that chemo is the correct knee-jerk reaction to cancer.  It is not, and we must challenge it.  Chemotherapy is NOT the solution that people believe it is.
  • The cancer industry is complacent. There is no motivation to improve the product line because business is booming.  With ‘early detection’ marketing, more and more people are diagnosed with cancer every day.  People are buying what they think they need.  There is no reason to make “a better mousetrap.”
  • Big Pharma is the driving force behind the millions of futile treatments and resultant deaths … people should finally start asking questions and demand answers, and stop dying.
  • Chemotherapy is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American public.   The Big Pharma-FDA complex must be exposed as a cartel colluding, not on curing cancer, but on generating profits.
  • Cancer treatment is the Rolls-Royce of the medical profession.  This is where the real money is.  Oncologists are the Rolls-Royce sales team of the cancer industry.  What will it take to get you into this car today?  What will it take to get you to sign up for chemotherapy today?  Very strong sales tactics. A sense of urgency.  Scare tactics.
  • It is not about altruism.  It’s about “show me the money.”  People need to hear this message before making the very real life and death decision about chemotherapy.  The war against the cancer industry is the real “battle for truth, justice and the American way.”  Think of chemotherapy as kryptonite.  It is toxic.  It can harm healthy cells and organs.  It can kill the cancer.  It can also kill the patient.
  • Does chemotherapy work?  Maybe, sometimes, with some specific cancers.  But very often, it does not work. Some cancer cells may die, but the collateral damage is the patient’s life.
  • Approximately 600,000 Americans die each year ostensibly from “cancer”—but are they actually dying from the treatment?  A very provocative question.
  • Everything we thought we knew about chemo didn’t come from data sources, it comes from media sources fed by the pharmaceutical companies selling their wares.
  • Chemotherapy may be the correct choice in a particular situation, but it should be a “choice” and not a “given.”  The choice should be made only after a thorough review of all facts and all options.  The oncologist, much like a salesman, will try to create a sense of urgency in order to make the sale.  Recognize this as a sales tactic and don’t succumb to it.  Insist upon taking the time to do your research.
  • Who is the FDA protecting us from?  If no one was dying in this country from cancer and cancer treatment, then it might be appropriate for the FDA to block other treatments from the marketplace.  We would say that cancer treatment is efficacious.  There would be no need to search for an alternate treatment.  There would be no need for this book.  But 600,000 deaths annually?  These people all took the treatment, and we know that they took the treatment because the statistics don’t track the people who decline treatment.  Something is very wrong here.  It doesn’t add up.  It must be challenged.  The actions of the FDA must be scrutinized.

 Words of Advice

  • Over a year ago, I had major surgery and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I wrote the first story on January 1, 2010 … On that date, I was only 2 months out from receiving a diagnosis, and on that date, I stopped reeling from the fear, panic, dread, despair, and anxiety, and took control of my life.  What you are feeling today, I also felt.  It is a scary place to be, but feel that I am holding your hand to guide you through this storm.  You will be able to follow the progress I made by making discoveries about treatment options (what works and what doesn’t work) and discoveries about life options (what we can do to save our own lives).
  • This has been a tremendous effort, a change in lifestyle, a change in eating habits, and a change in mental and emotional patterns–eliminating stress from my life, even in stress-producing situations.
  • The key to recovery from cancer is the awareness of truth; this will lead to making informed choices.  I learned the truth about chemotherapy and so I avoided it.
  • Hopefully, you may find that some of my discoveries will help you through your own process.  My focus is on healthy living, and on natural alternatives to toxic treatments.  In some situations, some type of treatment may be the correct choice; however, it is very important that you ask questions and know exactly what your options are.
  • Find a medical professional who fits your comfort level.  If your gut is telling you something is wrong with what you are hearing, then it probably IS wrong for you.  Don’t be afraid to get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion.  Do not just go along with recommendations without question.
  • Chemotherapy is the big killer, not cancer per se, but chemotherapy.  Chemo is not all that it’s cracked up to be.  Learn everything you can before you or your loved one agrees to it. Choose the right path for you to return to wellness.
  • Listen to your gut, listen to your heart, think this through.  You are your own best resource.  You are your own best healer.  Do your research, read a lot.  Do not panic.  You have time.  Take a deep breath and you will get through this.  Trust.  BE WELL! You can do this.
  • Through my own health circumstances, I was forced to research this issue.  I am grateful every day that I was able to sift through the deception and misleading statistics, and decline the highly toxic “standard of care” which I believe would have led to certain death.  Many people do not do this; they succumb to the scare tactics; they are too afraid not to go along with the conventional recommendation.
  • Read this (book) first before taking chemo.  Once it is understood that the cancer industry is driven by the profit motive, and not by altruism, then you have empowered yourself to ask the questions that need answers.  Find out specifically HOW chemo will help YOU in your specific situation.  Find out if taking chemo will make you BETTER.  This is key.  Most people taking chemo think that if they go through with it, if they take their medicine, that they will emerge healthy.  Many people do not emerge from chemo.  It turns out to be a slow, painful death.
  • The point is: find out exactly what you are getting into, BEFORE you get into it.  Keep an open mind as you read through this.
  • Start to notice what people say at funeral services for family and friends who died from ‘cancer’.  People will whisper in hushed tones that they think that it was the ‘chemo’ and not the ‘cancer’ that killed the deceased.  Pay attention.
  • People are starting to realize that chemo doesn’t work, and that the cancer industry has to come up with something better than this. Demand answers. Demand better options.

More about The Cancer Odyssey click these links:


Get It Right: Can Chemotherapy Really Cure Cancer?

If you are a scientist, and if you have done many scientific experiments / research in your life, and if you have a bit of common sense (never mind about having a Ph.D. — these days you can buy one easily), you will know that something is not right with the current medical way of treating cancer using poisonous drugs.

Well, I am not a medical doctor – in a way, that is a blessing because I can critically “see” that something does not add up.  Why?

But, let me also say this. You don’t need to be a scientist to “see” what I see and to know what I know.  Hear what a broadway playwright and a movie star has got to say:

In this article, I am not trying to tell you how bad or how good chemo is.  I think you have had enough of that. I am going to bring you yet another different but related message.  I hope you can learn many things from what is written below.

The recent website of the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA, had this headline: Advanced cancer patients overoptimistic about chemotherapy’s ability to cure, study finds

A study was conducted and led by medical researcher, Jane Weeks, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Harvard School of Public Health.

Others in the research team are Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH and Paul Catalano, ScD, Angel Cronin, and Jennifer Mack, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber; Matthew Finkelman, PhD, of Tufts University; and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

What Did They Study?

  • The study was conducted by surveying 1,274 patients at hospitals, clinics and treatment centers across the USA. Participants were recruited from geographically diverse populations and health care systems in order to systematically evaluate cancer care delivery in the U.S.
  • Study participants had been diagnosed with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer at least four months earlier and had received chemotherapy for their disease.
  • They studied their records in great detail.

The Results of the Study 

They found that 69 percent of patients with advanced lung cancer and 81 percent of patients with advanced colorectal cancer did not understand that the chemotherapy they were receiving was not at all likely to cure their disease. Their expectations run counter to the fact that although chemotherapy can alleviate pain and extend life in such patients by weeks or months, it is not a cure for these types of advanced cancer except in the rarest of circumstances.

  • Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer are frequently mistaken in their beliefs that chemotherapy can cure their disease.
  • Inaccurate expectations about the role of chemotherapy were found among patients from varied backgrounds treated in many different health care settings across the U.S.
  • Surprisingly, patients who rated their communication with their physician highly were the most likely to hold overoptimistic views about chemotherapy’s curative potential.
  • Strikingly, those patients who rated their physicians as worse communicators were more likely to have a realistic view of the potential benefit of their chemotherapy.
  • While there is no doubt that communication about prognosis in advanced cancer is challenging, a sizeable minority of study participants did grasp the incurable nature of their cancers.
  • Dr. Weeks noted: “If patients do not know whether a treatment offers a realistic possibility of cure, their ability to make informed treatment decisions that are consistent with their preferences may be compromised. This misunderstanding may pose obstacles to optimal end-of-life planning.”
  • Dr. Deborah Schrag said: “skilled clinicians can set realistic expectations without their patients’ losing either hope or trust.”

This study was published in the Oct. 25, 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute and by a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Mass Media Response To The Results Of This Study

  1. Are cancer patients’ hopes for chemo too high? 
  • At least two thirds of people with advanced cancer believed the chemotherapy they were receiving might cure them, even though the treatment was only being given to buy some time or make them comfortable.
  • Their expectations are way out of line with reality,
  • Perhaps ironically, the patients who had the nicest things to say about their doctors’ ability to communicate with them were less likely to understand the purpose of their chemotherapy than patients who had a less-favourable opinion of their communication with their physicians.
  • This is not about bad doctors and it’s not about unintelligent patients.This is a complex communication dynamic. It’s hard to talk to people and tell them “we can’t cure your cancer.”
  • Doctors find it uncomfortable to hammer home grim news and patients don’t want to believe it.
  • It was a reminder to doctors to slow down and take some time to realize how hard the issue is.
  • If patients actually have unrealistic expectations of a cure from a therapy that is administered with palliative intent, we have a serious problem of miscommunication we need to address.

Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia said:

  • What are you supposed to do, stand in front of someone with advance disease and argue with them? It’s not productive.

Thomas Smith and Dan Longo of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine wrote:

  • The results are probably due, in varying degrees, to patients not being told their disease is incurable.
  • Patients not being told in a way that lets them understand.
  • Patients choosing not to believe the message, or patients being too optimistic.
  • Many patients think they are going to beat the odds.

2.      Many cancer patients mistakenly believe chemotherapies will cure them, new study says

  • A majority of patients with advanced lung and colorectal cancer harbor the fundamental misperception that treatments that can extend life and alleviate pain might also cure them.
  • But the study couldn’t pinpoint where it occurs: whether patients receive unclear information from a physician or fail to fully comprehend what they are told, or whether there is a kind of clinical “collusion” in which the discussion moves rapidly from a dire prognosis to a focus on what can be tried, leaving patients with an inflated sense of hope.
  • The issue here … thinking that a treatment offers a chance of cure when in fact it doesn’t. This deprives these patients of the opportunity to weigh the risks of chemotherapy, including the chance of some rough side effects, against the true benefits, perhaps some symptom relief and a few months longer life but no chance of cure.

Dr. Eduardo Bruera, chair of the Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, said:

  • A bearer of good news might be seen in a more welcoming way; that might explain why sugar-coating might make people more liked by their patients.

Dr. Deborah Schrag, a colorectal cancer specialist at Dana-Farber and co-author of the study, said:

  • We had this hypothesis when it comes to giving bad news: Doctors who work at an integrated health care network, they’re not an independent practice, they’re more free to disclose the unvarnished truth, without worrying about the ramifications of, ‘If I’m not super cheerful and positive and optimistic, my patients would not like me.

Dr. David Ryan, chief of hematology/oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital said:

  • You have to provide the information about whether a situation is curable or not curable, and what the odds of doing well are for a long period of time.
  • But you also have to provide hope, and it can be difficult sometimes to convey that difficult information and also provide hope.

Oncologists said it was crucial to find where and why the misunderstanding takes root so that doctors can be sure their patients are making informed decisions.

3. Many Terminal Cancer Patients Mistakenly Believe A Cure Is Possible 

  • A survey finds that the majority of advanced stage lung and colon cancer patients believe chemotherapy might cure them, when it can actually only buy them a few months. Oncologists are worried about how this impacts end-of-life decision making.
  • Doctors are often called upon to deliver bad news to patients, and there isn’t much that’s worse than a diagnosis of an advanced-stage cancer for which there is no cure.
  • A large majority of patients who receive this news don’t fully comprehend it, or perhaps willfully choose to ignore it.
  • When people have unrealistic expectations they’re much less open to discussing end-of-life planning.
  • But patients always want positive news. In the short term, people will be happier if you give them happier news.”

Sandra Swan an oncologist at the Washington Hospital Center said:

  • Ultimately the doctor’s responsibility is to ensure that their patients fully understands what’s happening to them.
  • There needs to be continued communication about the prognosis and it needs to be done early on. I don’t think physicians do it particularly well. … Many physicians just have a very hard time communicating that they’re not going to be able to cure the patient.
  • Doctors need do a better job of helping terminally ill cancer patients let go of false hopes without squashing all hope.
  • You don’t want to take away hope from patients. They’re not going to be cured but it’s not like they’re going to die instantly. So it is a really hard balance to achieve.

4.   Most patients with incurable cancer still think they’ll survive, study finds

  • Many patients who receive chemotherapy for incurable cancers still believe they can beat the disease, a new study suggests. The researchers behind the study question if patients are simply in denial or doctors are skirting the truth with their patients’ prognoses.
  • The research also highlights the problem of overtreatment at the end of life — futile care that simply prolongs dying.
  • For cancers that have spread beyond the lung or colon, chemo can add weeks or months and may ease a patient’s symptoms, but usually is not a cure. This doesn’t mean that patients shouldn’t have it, only that they should understand what it can and cannot do, cancer experts say. But often, they do not.

Dr. Thomas J. Smith of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Dr. Dan L. Longo, question:

  • Whether patients are being told clearly when their disease is incurable. Patients also may have a different understanding of “cure” than completely ridding them of a disease – they may think it’s an end to pain or less disability.
  • If patients actually have unrealistic expectations of a cure from a therapy that is administered with palliative intent, we have a serious problem of miscommunication.

How should doctors have this difficult conversation with patients?

Smith told CBS This Morning that doctors should operate on an “ask, tell, ask” basis when patients are faced with a life-threatening illness. That means doctors should ask patients up front how many details they want to know about their illness. Then, they should tell patients in understandable terms their prognosis, such as by saying “based on people like you, you may have weeks or months.”

While some patients may have positive attitudes and think they’ll still beat the disease, Smith says he’ll tell patients that doctors won’t stand in the way of miracles, “but we can hope for the best but still need to plan for the worst.”

The study raises concerns about unnecessary but costly medical treatments for dying patients.  Smith said having the difficult conversation with a patient about their end-of-life care may lower these costs because many patients may want to be comfortable at home, and not in a hospital. This really isn’t about saving money, so much as honoring people’s choices.”

Read more on CBS: Doctors unveil “Choosing Wisely” campaign to cut unnecessary medical tests;contentBody

Should parents’ belief in miracles trump medical expertise in end-of-life decisions?;contentBody

Truth Is a Bitter Pill – Hard For You to Accept Reality

Chemotherapy Game Changer for Stage 4 Cancer

  • The current model and approach being used by numerous cancer centers and hospitals is the “germ theory.” This model aims to focus on destroying cancer cells using a “one size fits all” protocol.
  • The doctors at Envita explain that each person’s cancer is unique and cannot be put into one category or group even if patients have the same type and stage of cancer.
  • So why are cancer centers not using this approach to treatment? It is very difficult for large structured institutions and pharmaceutical companies to move quickly with the world’s modern technologies because they have so much invested in the old system.
  • The doctors at Envita noted that when patients were tested, over 75% of them were on the wrong treatments prior to coming to the center. No wonder so many patients are struggling with cancer!

The war on cancer

Back home in Malaysia, this is what Dr. Amir Farid Ishak wrote in his Star column. 

  • Chemotherapy is not necessarily the best strategy to fight cancer.
  • In several previous articles, I quoted several major reviews on chemotherapy, reported in the top peer-reviewed journals that concluded that chemotherapy only helped 2-7% of the cancer patients, at the cost of so much additional suffering, and enormous financial burden.
  • Oncologists and the medical community in general continue to believe that chemotherapy protocols should be continued despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
  • They then convince cancer patients that chemotherapy is essential if they hope to prolong their lives or recover from the disease. Yet, the scientific studies show that what is believed by the oncologists is not always the same as what is proven by the studies.
  • The most recent comprehensive review of the effectiveness of chemotherapy was published by three oncologists in 2004 in the top cancer journal Clinical Oncology (16:549-560), and the conclusion was that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2% to improved survival in all the cancer patients in Australia and the US.
  • In 2004, most of the other oncologists neither refuted nor changed their reliance on chemotherapy despite the conclusive evidence. Now eight years later, although no similar comprehensive review has shown any significant improvement, that review is said to be outdated by some oncologists.
  • What I lament is the painfully slow progress in cancer therapy, such that many are not saved. The US is arguably the most advanced nation medically, yet for 2012, the American Cancer Society expects almost 600,000 deaths from all types of cancer (including 160,000 from lung cancer, 50,000 from colorectal cancer, and 40,000 from breast cancer). One in four deaths in the US is due to cancer. There will be about 1.6 million new cancer cases this year. Those figures certainly show that we are far, far away from winning the war on cancer.
  • Have we won the war? Or have we the lost war?
  • I strongly encourage readers to read War on Cancer – A Progress Report for Skeptics (Feb 2010) by Dr Reynold Spector, clinical professor of medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, US ( His conclusion: “… unlike the successes against heart disease and stroke, the war on cancer, after almost 40 years, must be deemed a failure with a few notable exceptions.”
  • While the oncologists continue to look for the latest chemo and smart drugs, it is my duty to highlight the fact that while the next promising drug will be amply funded to prove its effectiveness, the next promising nutritional therapy is likely to be abandoned because nobody wants to spend money on something that cannot be patented in order to recoup the costs, as well as make a handsome profit.


For the past 16 years, we at CA Care have been spreading the above message. Now, I am glad to say that cancer experts in the US are saying the same thing. I don’t think I have to add any more messages!  But let me just share with you our frustrations over these years.

  1. Almost all cancer patients who came to us have undergone all medical treatments. Most of them are “medically written off.”
  2. And 70 percent of them come expecting us to cure them – they are seeking the elusive magic bullet. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find hope or not giving up hope, except that they are also the kiasu (only want to win) type . For this group of people, we would rather they go and find help elsewhere.
  3. The kiasus want healing on their own terms.  They only want to hear what they want to hear. They want things easy and cheap. Boiling the herbs to help themselves is a big chore to handle. They don’t want to take responsibility for their own well being. They want a cure but they want to eat anything they like.
  4. Only 30 percent of those who come benefit from our therapy.  They know what they are up against after being told the truth. They are determined to heal themselves and are willing to try. I have great respect and admiration for such patients.
  5. We are fully aware that patients come here to find hope. And telling them that they don’t have any more hope is a disaster. So we know we need to strike a balance. Correct, we cannot cure your cancer, because I believe that no one on earth can cure cancer either! That is the reality. My auntie had cancer. She had surgery and radiation. She thought she was cured. Thirteen years later, the cancer recurred in her lungs and she died. Where is the cure? And do I need to hide that reality to cancer patients?
  6.  Make no mistake, I don’t want to mislead them or cheat them. But by telling patients this, do I deprive them of hope? Yes or No, depending whether you are a kiasu or not! If you are the one who only want to win and would not want to lose, you would not like what I say. You don’t want to face reality.
  7. By telling you the truth – that I cannot cure you, does not mean that you are going to die now! If you have been reading the stories in our CA Care’s website, you will note that those patients were told to go home and die, but they do not die. They continue to live! That is hope! At CA Care we have seen miraculous healing week after week and month after month. But, make no mistake, this healing is NOT cure – the cancer can come back again if you become complacent and irresponsible.  But the unfortunate part is that many patients are just irresponsible. Period.
  8. So, by being honest and asking you to face reality we are not depriving you of that hope – on the contrary we provide you with new path and take you through another journey of hope.  The only problem is this – the journey is not easy to travel and is not meant for the kiasu.  I have enough documented stories to show you that you need not have to die yet if you are prepared to take the responsibility of your own healing into your own hands – you do your best and we do our best. And together we take this journey. Many remain healthy for years. Click on the success stories of our cancer patients and hear them tell you their stories. Just one example –  I like to tell you the story of this sweet lady from Makassar.
  9. The kiasus like to hear only things that they want to hear. For example:
    1. Cancer can be treated! Many patients don’t realize that to be treated is one thing. To get cured is another. While writing this article, I have a lady who came for help. She brought her sister for treatment in a private hospital  here and had already spent RM 100,000. A few hours ago, the doctor told the sister to bring the patient home quickly. She was not getting any better – in fact her health had deteriorated. Cancer can be treated for a long as you have the money to pay the bills (and preferable if you have a fat health insurance coverage!)  Read my articles: Part 1: The High Cost of Staying Alive in a Private Hospital. Part 2: One or Two Dozens of Drugs A Day Could Not Help Her?
    2. With chemo, you have a 80% chance of curing your lymphoma!  Patients love to hear that message of hope. And they believe such statistics!  Here is one example. A lady with cervical cancer was told that she had a 98 percent chance of cure with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She believed her doctor. Four months later the cancer spread to her lungs. And that is cure? I hear this kind of stories very often.

Here is another example. A breast cancer lady underwent chemotherapy, radiotherapy and took Tamoxifen for five years.  Then cancer spread to her bones. She asked the doctor why she was not cured. The answer was:  It is your fate.  But the recurrence has nothing to do with what you eat. It is just your fate. Believe that? Where is the so-called science in cancer treatment?

Let me end with these quotations:

Take note, the author, Dr. Dan E. Chestnut, is a medical doctor of 44 years.

Dissecting Chemotherapy 14: Please Tell Patients the Real Truth


Author: Dr. Morton Walker, D.P.M., is the author of 2000 clinical articles and 92 published books. Dr. Walker is the recipient of 23 medical journalism awards and was named, “The World’s Leading Medical Journalist Specializing in Holistic Medicine” by the American Cancer Control Society. (Note: Podiatric medicine is the study of human movement, focusing on the foot and ankle. A doctor of podiatric medicine (DPM) is to the foot what a dentist is to the mouth or an ophthalmologist to the eye).

Why Write this Book? When cancer took my wife, my mother, my sister, and my fiancee who had pledged to spend her last years with me, I knew I had to step up …let the world knows about it.

Fiancee With Pancreatic Cancer: We planned to be married within the early months of 2005, instead, during late fall and early winter of 2004, I frequented the reception areas and consultations of Massachusetts General Hospital … because my fiancee had been admitted to this hospital with pancreatic cancer.

Prognosis:  Such cancer (pancreatic cancer) is an illness with a devastating prognosis … less than 7 percent of cases are detected early. The rest are spotted when pain or other symptoms appear. Some 37,680 new cases of pancreatic cancer occurred in 2008, with a mere 2 percent experiencing a five-year survival rate.

Oncologists and Radiotherapists Push: I was astounded at how distorted the physicians’ presentations were when they discussed the side effects of their treatments. The doctors appeared to become almost like used-car salesmen in a pitch for their surgery, radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy.

I know something about medical practices and oncology from my work as a medical researcher and as a former practicing podiatrist. In my opinion, the information the oncologists gave my fiancee was hardly an honest assessment of the relative benefits and risks associated with the recommended treatments.

My fiancee, her two educated, middle-age sons and I consulted twice with a group of oncological specialists. The decision was made that this 62-yera-old woman, diagnosed with an aggressive pancreatic cancer, required immediate surgery employing the Whipple’s operation triad. The Whipple’s is a very extensive operative procedure that involves the excision of at least three internal organs, including a majority of the victim’s pancreas.

Preoperative radiation was recommended for her, and following operative recovery, postoperative chemotherapy was also mandatory.

Both radiation and chemotherapy oncologists went about selling their separate treatments to the patient, her sons, and me. When I asked about the residual side effects of the typical treatment, her oncologists told us that there were none. My fiancee, her sons and I were astounded. “No side effects? How could that be?” The oncologists were steadfast in their declarations. I knew they were lying.

I observed literally hundreds of bald-headed women waiting in the radiotherapy and chemotherapy hospital areas for commencement of their next treatments. I thought, with no small amount of disgust, “Isn’t the loss of hair with resultant baldheadedness a side effect of one or both of these cancer therapies?” All of us know that it is.

I was opposed to the radiation therapy, but that’s what this patient and her two sons elected for her to do.  When I finally encouraged my fiancee to take Dr. Beljanski’s botanicals … Her two sons, a stock broker and a computer programmer, would have none of my recommendations. Beljanski’s herbals ended up being flushed down the hospital room’s toilet. They considered holistic-type therapies outright quackery.

Condemned by these young men, I was literally ordered to leave the hospital scene. They said, “Get out of my mother’s life!” She died within two months of her sons sending me away.

Comments:  Take note of what other authors said below:




Dissecting Chemotherapy 13 : Experiencing the Harmful Side Effects and Collateral Damage


by Terry Thompson. His wife died of breast cancer, his eldest brother died of lung cancer and another brother died of a rare cancer that attacked his heart. Thompson is a retired colonel in the US Air Force. He was also a staff pastor of a large church. Later he became the GM of a nationally syndicated outdoor sports TV program. He is professor of John Brown University, a private, Christian liberal arts college in Arkansas, USA.

The best way I know to describe the debilitating nature of chemotherapy is to reference my personal experiences. The following account of the three years my former wife (Connie) suffered under the oppression of aggressive chemotherapy.

The treatment and its impact on our lives were the worse experiences I had faced in my life at that point. Today, I can assure that its devastating effect was eclipsed only by Connie’s death. And. of course, my experience was nothing compared to what she had to deal with.

  • Immediately after receiving the first infusion, Connie became nauseated… it usually takes days or weeks before the dosage and anti-nausea supplements can be adjusted to individual tolerance and need.
  • The vomiting and diarrhea were devastating for the first several treatments. She was confined to the beds for days. Hardly anything she ate would stay with her.
  • She continued to have occasional regressive bouts with nausea.
  • When the nausea was in check, lack of appetite still plagued the pursuit of healthy nutrition. Connie had to force herself to eat without any feeling of hunger. The food she was able to eat was virtually tasteless.  Imagine weeks and months looking on any food item with disgust … the smell of food from another room would cause her to gag or vomit. Meals were never a pleasurable experience as long as chemicals were being infused.
  • After several treatments, mouth sores, a common side effect of chemotherapy, made eating a painful experience.
  • Connie had been an athletic person with seemingly boundless energy. Throughout the chemo regimen, she was constantly tired. After the lightest task, she would have to lie down on the couch or recline in a chair for a while before attempting anything else.
  • Social activities virtually ceased, since a few minutes of standing and small talk would exhaust her… just physically drained from the chemical attack on her body.
  • From the beginning of treatment, a weak immune system caused by a low white blood count often kept her from being near other people.
  • The cumulative effect of the chemo began to more severely restrict the immune system.
  • Collateral damage to the body is another serious concern. Many medical procedures are accompanied by risks of injury to otherwise healthy parts of the body. In Connie’s case, the highly qualified surgeon punctured her lung in the process of “chemo” port insertion. This is a rare occurrence, but just one of several anomalies that can violate the body during conventional treatment.
  • Another ever-looming threat of collateral misfortune is that of serious, even deadly, infection. The actual condition that caused the precipitous slide that ended Connie’s life was a bacterial infection so potent that the strongest antibiotics could not faze it. She developed septic condition. Even though the official cause of her death was metastasis of breast cancer, it was an infection, probably from the treatment, that led to the ultimate loss of the battle.
  • For anyone, especially those who love to be around people, conventional cancer treatment is usually accompanied by feelings of alienation, disconnection, loneliness and even guilt. Physical distress, coupled with psycho-social grief is a poor foundation from which to build a healing force to combat cancer.

Chemotherapy Boosts Cancer Growth, Spread and Resistance – Really?

Sue was 39-years (in 2003) when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Two weeks after her diagnosis she underwent a mastectomy. After the surgery, Sue was referred to an oncologist who recommended that she undergo six cycles of chemotherapy. Sue asked the oncologist: Why? The oncologist replied: In the US, for any tumour above 1.0 cm you must go for chemotherapy.  In England and Europe, it is anything above 1.5 cm.  Since yours is 1.7 cm you must go for chemotherapy.  Sue asked: If I don’t go for chemotherapy, what are the chances of recurrence?  He said: If you go for chemotherapy the chance of cancer not recurring is ninety percent within five years.  If you do not go for chemotherapy after a mastectomy, the chance of no recurrence is eighty-five percent.  So Sue said: Five percent less only?  He said: Yeah.  Sue replied:  I might as well not do it.  I have to go through so much if I do chemotherapy and I may only get a five percent benefit. I can get that extra five percent by doing a lot of other things. Sue opted for CA Care Therapy instead of chemotherapy.

As of this writing, 2012, Sue has been doing very well with no problem along the way!

Johnny was 46 years old when he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He underwent surgery twice in January 2006. Then he was asked to undergo chemotherapy. Johnny was hesitant to see an oncologist. But after much pushing from his surgeon, Johnny agreed to see an oncologist. This was what Johnny told us.

I went into the oncologist’s office. The oncologist read out my name and he asked the first question: What car are you driving? This question was followed by: What is your profession?  The oncologist then said: Your cancer is like a Mercedes, BMW, Japanese car or a local car. Your case is Stage 2. So you need to take a good medicine – like a Mercedes medicine to fight … There are many kinds of medicine. There is A – the good one; B which is not so good and C, which is an oral one. So which type do you want?

Chris: He asked you to choose the drugs?  In your discussion, did he ever say that whatever drug he is giving you is going to help you or not?

Johnny: No, no. He just told me it was just for prevention. He said that once I got rid of my cancer, there might be some more cancer cells present in the lungs or somewhere else in the body.

C: So, the whole idea was just for prevention?

J: Yes, and I had to go for chemotherapy.

C:  Let me ask you this: Before you went to see the oncologist, had you already made up your mind NOT to undergo chemotherapy? Why did you go and see him then?

J: Oh, because the nurse in the hospital (where I had my surgery) had been calling my wife every two to three days. The nurse said to my wife: Your husband has still not gone for chemotherapy. We have made an appointment for him to see the oncologist. But he did not turn up. 

C: How many times did the nurse call you?

J:  As many times as I postponed the appointments to go and see the oncologist.  So, at last, I decided to give it a try.

C: What made you decide not to have chemotherapy?

J: Because of my experiences in seeing how other people suffered – my friends A, B, C, D and my sister-in-law herself. My sister-in-law underwent chemotherapy and she died after one year and two months. 

After I came home from the cancer hospital, the oncology nurse called my home again and again. She talked to my wife. She wanted to know why I did not go for chemotherapy. She told my wife that my cancer was very dangerous and I had to do chemotherapy. My wife told her that I was taking herbs and would not do chemotherapy anymore. The nurse said this to my wife: If you take medicine from outside, it is going to be dangerous. It is not effective and this will make the cancer grow faster and spread more. My wife replied: No, my husband will not go for chemotherapy anymore. He has made up his mind on this. 

As of this writing, 2012 – six years after his cancer diagnosis Johnny is still on our CA Care Therapy. He declined chemotherapy. He is doing well. We get to see Johnny almost every week all these years.

Almost and always, patients are told to undergo chemotherapy after surgery. The reason given by the oncologist in the first example was SOP (standard operating procedure) i.e., based on what people do in the USA or Europe. In the second example, it was chemo for prevention. Then what about the nurse’s threat – If you take herbs, it is going to be dangerous. It is not effective and this will make the cancer grow faster and spread more? This, as you can see is mere speculation or snake oil science! Medically was considered “cured” by herbs after surviving five years.

There are more reasons why patients are asked to undergo chemotherapy, such as:

a)      To kill all the cancer cells left behind in the body after the surgery – a mop up operation of sort!

b)      To stop the cancer from spreading.

c)       To promote better quality of life. 

Over the years dealing with cancer patients, I am well aware that patients go into “fear mode” once they are told they have cancer! They go to their caregivers hoping to find a cure. And they hope or only want to hear what they want to hear – i.e. they can be cured of this dreadful disease. They will swallow any suggestion that resembles or promises a slightest chance of cure. So the above explanations by their caregivers are indeed most welcomed and readily accepted.

But how true or scientific are these reasoning? I am afraid patients are being told half-truths, if not being totally misinformed or misled. If you have been following this website, I believe you know why. But let me not go into another chemo-bashing spree. Let me tell you why I feel compelled to write this article. Over the past few days, two research reports were in circulation in the internet. Read them for yourself. 

1. Chemotherapy can backfire, chemo can boost cancer growth 

“Chemotherapy can actually boost the growth of cancer cells, making the disease harder to fight,” Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle made this “completely unexpected” finding.

  • They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment.
  • The healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted 30 times more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.  WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.
  • The researchers said: “Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.
  • The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.
  • About 90 percent of patients with solid cancers like breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers or other metastatic diseases that spread end up developing resistance to treatment.
  • Chemotherapy is often given at intervals so that the body is not overwhelmed by its toxicity, but experts say that breaks in treatments provides time for tumor cells to recover and develop mutations that boost their survival and help them resist treatment. 

Read more:

2. Stem cells blamed for cancer re-growth

Three teams of researchers working independently in Holland; Belgium and UK;  and the United States presented evidence that cancer stem cells exist and they may be the starting point for cancerous tumors.

Working with the incurable brain tumours, researchers have found a subset of cells that appear to be the source of new tumour growth after chemotherapy. Luis Parada of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center said, “This study serves as a proof of principle that in at least some solid tumours functional cancer stem cells exist”.

Researchers in Belgium and the UK also found a sub-population of tumour cells with stem-like properties in skin cancer.

Dutch researcher Hugo Snippert said: “The hypothesis (that cancer stem cells exist) has been around now for some time. Hopefully these three papers now make an end to the discussion. “

These findings challenged the classical notion that tumours are comprised of masses of cancer cells that are all the same, and all dividing. This study showed that mutated, cancerous cells may develop directly from stem cells. Stem cells therefore act as cancer cell factories.

The existence of cancer stem cells may raise the following implications:

  • “Since the cancer stem cells are so similar to normal stem cells, most treatments also harm the normal stem cells” Snippert said. What does this imply? It means that if you think you can kill the cancer cells by chemotherapy, the chances are you kill the patients too!
  • “It’s no longer valid to evaluate the volume of a tumor and say whether therapy is working or not.  What will be important is to know is how that therapy is affecting the cancer stem cells within the tumor,” Parada said. These stem cells are the drivers of metastasis, the spread of cancer via the blood stream
  • “It’s really essential that you get rid of the cancer stem cells because they are tiny, they are low numbers.  But they are able to grow and to give rise and fuel tumor growth really fast,” Snipert said. Unfortunately, cancer stem cells are particularly resistant to chemotherapy (

Read more: 

Putting Reality Into Practice 

Read what one unique Medical Center in the USA has to say

While surfing the net to find the information for this article, I “discovered” the Envita Medical Centre, in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA .  According to its website  this is the only clinic of its kind. The following are   extracts from its website:

  • Our medical centre offers an extensive array of advanced natural treatments from all over the world under one roof.  We combine these treatment options with the best of conventional medicine to offer our patients comprehensive and complete treatment programs.  By bridging the best of what’s available in both natural and conventional medicine, we provide a cutting-edge approach to care that gives our patients the advantage.


  • Despite the National Cancer Institute’s forty years of scientific research (which now costs $4 billion annually), stage 3 and 4 chemotherapy-driven cancer treatments have not progressed a whole lot. In fact, the treatments typically do not work… at an alarming rate of 75% being ineffective.
  • The current model used to treat cancer in cancer centers and hospitals is known as “germ theory.” The germ theory approach focuses on destroying foreign cancer cells like an infection by using an aggressive regimen of chemotherapy that not been typed to the patient. Interestingly enough, Envita molecular tests show that standard chemotherapy is about 75% ineffective in patients whose treatments were not typed. That is 75% who get no results yet do great damage to their immune system. How can this be allowed to happen?

The Drawback of Old School Chemotherapy

  • During World War II, a nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to destroy the enemy; however, the damage was so devastating it resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. Without preliminary testing and targeting, large doses of chemotherapy can wreak similar havoc within a patient’s body. The collateral damage to healthy cells is devastating and often worse than the cancer itself, particularly in regard to the destruction and disabling of the immune system – the one natural mechanism your body normally uses to fight cancer cells every day.
  • One of the most frequent mistakes notably affecting stage 4 colon cancer patients is directly related to using standardized chemotherapy protocols. The approach is widely inappropriate, because ultimately, it’s only 2% effective in stage 4 colon cancer.
  • Many have been faced with the all-to-common dilemma that arises when the oncologist orders a standard regime of chemotherapy to treat their advanced or stage 4 cancers – even after chemotherapy had previously failed. Patients often feel that the course of treatment can be worse than the disease itself. 

Chemotherapy Just Two Percent Effective in Late Stage Cancers

  • Many late stage cancer patients have endured unforgiving chemo treatment regimens only to realize minimal benefits, or worse, to discover their cancer was completely unresponsive.
  • When accepting new treatments, most patients are not aware that chemotherapy is just two percent effective in late stage cancers after a five-year period.

Conventional Chemo May Be Disappointing for Late Stage Patients

  • Despite the National Cancer Institute’s forty years of scientific research stage 3 and 4 chemotherapy-driven cancer treatments have not progressed a whole lot. In fact, the treatments typically do not work.
  • In his book “An Anatomy of Failure: A Blueprint for Future Years” Dr. Guy B. Faguet suggests that chemotherapy has not been shown to assist or advance survival beyond five years in most adults who suffer with advanced and late stage cancers.

Pharmaceutical Chemotherapy – Time to Look Beyond

  • Dr. Guy B. Faguet is not alone in his research-founded belief that chemotherapy is largely ineffective in dealing with advanced cancers or malignancies. Australian specialist Dr. Graeme Morgan shares Faguet’s view that chemotherapy is barely two percent effective in late stage treatment. With such a low success rate, it is time to deeply consider research-derived alternatives.
  • With facts being what they are, it is no longer sufficient or responsible for medical practitioners to rely solely on the traditional, pharmaceutical model to solve such problems. Fortunately, other effective options do exist.

Why Are Ineffective Approaches Still Acceptable to Many Oncologists?

  • By and large cancer growth response, or “shrinkage,” remains the primary focus of cancer treatment. Unfortunately, research demonstrates that such responses do not often correlate to elevated survival in patients. When traditional cancer treatment reports a 20 or 30 percent effect, it simply means that the patient’s tumor shrunk by 20 to 30 percent. This is deceptive because the cancer typically grows back, oftentimes larger, and resistant to the chemotherapy. The real measure is how long life is sustained and its quality therewith.
  • Envita is results oriented and we measure our success in terms of tumor change, as well as the long-term outcomes and quality of life experienced by our patients. This continues to be our driving force for developing and perfecting unique, quality treatments for our patients.

Questioning the Experts May Send You Away Empty

  • When an oncologist explains whether or not a therapy is “working,” the reality might not be so black and white. Such conventional cancer treatment protocols are laden with “let’s wait and see language.” In simple terms, if an individual lives five years or more from the beginning of treatment, than that treatment for cancer was considered a success, or that “it worked.”
  • Standard oncology insists on following typical chemotherapy protocols, despite documentation that indicates ineffectiveness with advanced stage cancers. Why, do you ask?
  • Well, you should know that virtually all cancer centers use fundamentally identical variations of protocol regimens because they follow each other. In fact, the more prestigious the organization the more this occurs. It is not uncommon to attend their respective board meetings and hear the discussion repeatedly return to using the same old non-proven method.
  • Unbelievably, most new and innovative cancer information and treatments are coming from outside the United States. “It doesn’t work,” or “It isn’t proven” seem the popular answers given to patients with alternative curiosities. This is ironic, knowing that research indicates that traditional (meaning medical) treatments ARE regularly being proven to NOT work.

Putting it Together and Reaching Beyond Chemo

Truly successful approaches to cancer must surpass the simple tumor-size analysis, and include:

  • Long-term results from building the immune system
  • Removing causes for example toxins such as cancer-causing carcinogens
  • Stopping chronic inflammation
  • Targeting cancer cells alone, not the human body’s defense system.
  • When such methods are adopted and consistently integrated, only then might we seriously consider cancer care as being effective or successful.

So, how important is Cancer Nutrition?

Proper cancer nutrition is emphasized by Envita’s medical team as it can immediately improve the quality of life while simultaneously enhancing other treatments at the same time. Since the 1970s, there have been more than 280 peer-reviewed studies, involving no less than 50 worldwide human studies, with more than 8,521 patients of whom 5,081 were given nutrients. These studies have definitively shown significant improvement in the following categories:

  • Quality of life
  • Enhanced immunity
  • Healthy tissue protection
  • Assistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy

There is no question that antioxidants and nutrients, administered properly, do not interfere with conventional treatments for cancer such as chemotherapy and radiation. We recognize this nutrition-based form of cancer therapy to be critical for those in remission, as well as for patients who are working toward prevention.


  • Metastasis is the spread of cancer from one area to other organs in the body. Ninety percent of all cancer patients die because of metastasis.
  • When chemotherapy, surgery and radiation fail, as they commonly do in late stage cancers, metastasis takes off like wild fire.
  • What many people do not know is that metastasis begins on the cellular level, in the very early stages of cancer. This is called micro-metastasis. When micro-metastases begin to invade tissue at a macro level, metastatic cancer occurs.
  • Many cancer patients may have micro-metastasis occurring, yet their oncologists can never really be sure, because they are often undetectable.
  • Many patients are told that the only way to really know if they have received an effective outcome with conventional treatment is to watch and wait and to “allow time to be the best determining factor for a successful treatment” – a statement that has virtually become a “pop oncology” mantra.
  • To further complicate matters, it has been shown that some metastases are active while other forms are dormant in an arrested cell cycle – waiting for messengers to start them up again.
  • There are also forms of metastasis that go untouched or unaffected by chemotherapy as they do not behave as “normal” cancer cells do. The problem with current conventional cancer treatment could not be clearer: the World is in need of a more effective way to combat metastasis. This is the very thought that inspired the founder of Envita to create a truly integrative cancer center.

The Politics of Developing a New Cancer Treatment

  • It would be nice to think that all cancer treatments are based simply on good science, great patient care, and life-saving innovations. In reality, that’s not the case. The FDA issued a warning letter to Envita for not registering the biologics product as a new research drug with IND application.

Don’t Let Cancer Cells Become a Sleeping Giants

  • How tumor cells enter and escape dormant states is yet to be fully understood. Some research has shown that removal of the primary tumor may actually trigger the metastasized tumor cells’ escape from dormancy by releasing growth factors and angiogenic factors as well as by catalyzing a reduction in apoptosis.
  • Researchers are still examining whether dormant tumor cells are in cell-cycle arrest, or whether they are dividing and being killed at the same rate as they’re dividing. One reason these cells may escape chemotherapy is because they are not dividing. Chemotherapy tends to target rapidly dividing cells.

Immunity Deals Best with Dormant Metastasis and Stage 4 Cancer

  • The immune system plays a significant role in keeping metastasized tumor cells dormant. Research shows that suppressing the part of the immune system responsible for adaptive immunity, may result in late development of rapidly growing cancers.
  • On the other hand, cells that are held in a dormant state are under the control of an immune response that prevents further growth and actually programs the cells to kill themselves. For this reason, dormant metastasized cancer cells may indeed be used as a way to prevent cancer recurrence by priming the immune system to respond to such cells and prevent further growth by keeping them dormant. Thus, residual tumor cells may be kept under control through passive and active adaptive immunization.
  • In conclusion, the immune system ultimately serves as both the first and last lines of defense against cancer.


Let me conclude by saying this: For more than a decade I have been reading numerous books and articles in medical journals about chemotherapy and cancer cure. It is indeed hard for me to comprehend the reason that patients are asked to undergo chemo just because of the so-called SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), or undergoing chemo as a way to prevent cancer recurrence. If you read and understand the above, you know that the reasons given do not make much sense.

Similarly, you undergo chemo because you want to kill all the remaining cancer cells left behind in the body; or to stop cancer from spreading; or promote quality of life. These statements, unfortunately, may be just equally off the mark too! At best it is only half truth.

Read again what doctors at the Envita Medical Center have said. What do you think of Envita’s claim that it is the only one of its kind? Probably right? To me, their doctors are a lot more sensible. If you have the money and have cancer, I suggest you visit Envita. Otherwise, let us all pray that one day – sometime in the not too distant future – similar hospitals can be found in this part of the world.

Perception or Deception – Let’s Get It Right

Our bus pulled over by the roadside and let us down to a shop selling locally made chocolate. The shop is among many orange trees. This being the month of June, most of these trees remain lush with green leaves not bearing any fruit. However, there are two or three trees near the shop that are unique – they have nice oranges on them! And many of us – the tourists – are taking pictures with the trees as the backdrop. I too took a nice picture of this “wonder” tree. But it did not take long for me to figure out that these are “fake oranges.” In short, it was a “deception,” although our human eyes perceive it as real oranges!

This trip to Korea just taught me one lesson – many things in life are all about perception – just that, perception! For many issues if we have time enough to look deeper into it, we may discover it is more than what the eyes can see! Then we can ask, is it just our perception or is it a deception or even a manipulation?

John F Kennedy once said, The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

After I got into the bus again, I recalled a book that I wrote some years ago – Getting it right. 

Actually I call this a book of quotations because it contained statements made by renowned medical experts as found published in established medical journals.  By doing this way, I want to ensure that I get it right and not wrong! Among the questions I asked and attempted to answer in this book are: Is modern medicine the only proven and scientific therapy? Is traditional and complementary / alternative medicine quackery? Are research data always reliable and proven when published in peer-reviewed journals? Are drugs perfectly safe after FDA approval?  Are “they” protecting public safety or safe-guarding self-interest? Can medicine cure cancer?

This orange tree was all forgotten after I came home. But after reading the book, The End of Illness, which my good friend S.Y. Yeong had sent me, “triggered” me to revisit this subject of perception again. Two sentences that Dr. David Agus wrote, awakened me – In the upcoming chapters, I’ll help you to answer that questions because many of these commonly held perceptions are just that – perceptions. I’m going to bust a few of these ideas and show you a different way of considering what’s good for you or not.

What is it that Dr. Agus wanted us to know? I suggest that you read his book for yourself, but let me share with you some of my thoughts.

First, I have high respect for this man. Dr. Agus  is professor of medicine and engineering at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine and the Viterbi School of Engineering. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his M.D. from University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Agus did his medical internship and residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital and his oncology fellowship training at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre. He is indeed well qualified to be saying what he is saying.

Second, it is not only his paper qualification that is just attractive, but the attitude of the man that I have the highest respect for.  Dr. Agus related a “trivial” event (for most people!) that changed him. This is what he wrote:

When I walked past my hospital’s gift shop and saw the cover of Fortune magazine proclaiming “Why We’re Losing the War on Cancer, “ … it seemed to be pointing a finger at me telling me how terribly I’d been doing my job. Cancer care has been much criticized over the last several decades, and clearly this article was trying to rip apart my field some more… It left a deep impression on me, for any cancer doctor who comes across such a blunt headline and well-thought-out essay is bound to feel disheartened and failing at his most essential job.

Clifton made remarkable points in the article, the most significant of which explained how we – as a society, but more specifically, within the medical community – have come to look at biology. For the last fifty years, we have focused on trying to understand the individual features of cancer in order to treat it rather than putting our efforts directly into controlling cancer. We have forgotten that curing cancer starts with preventing cancer.

When we reduce science down to the goal of finding the tiniest improvements in treatment rather than genuine breakthroughs, we lose sight of the bigger picture and find ourselves lost.

Is this why we’ve barely budged in our “war” against cancer in the last five decades?  … Gnawing questions like these began to bother me. I am, after all, an oncologist who cannot treat advanced cancer well. Medical science has made extraordinary progress over the past century, but in my field, the progress stalled out decades ago.

But, despite my initial reaction, I did and do believe that this kind of criticism is desperately needed, and I am inspired by the challenge to fix what’s broken.

To me, this is the measure of an honest, thinking man. This is what the wise and the educated should aspire to do. If there is a problem – say it out and more importantly, try to find a solution to it.

What are the problems that Dr. Agus see which do not seem to be right? He wrote:

Limitations of Medical Science

1.  The truth is that some doctors inflict a lot of harm today. The entire notion of “do no harm” has been corrupted; we’ve move into an extreme place in medicine that’s rarely data-driven and is horrendously overrun by false or unproven claims.

2.  A lot is going on in the body at any given moment. Yet we perform medicine in piecemeal – targeting one problem at a time. If you’re diagnosed with pneumonia, then you’ll receive a treatment specific for pneumonia and await your next health challenge. But what happens when you’ve got a system that’s broken down in a way that cannot be explained by any single invader …? Then you’ve got a real problem … because current methods of medicine don’t know what to do with you. The proposed treatment will probably mess with other areas in your system in ways that we may or may not know about. Your doctor will tell you that that treatment is “safe and effective,” but he’s only talking in relation to that one conditions, at that moment in time. He’s not considering everything else that encapsulates you – especially in the long run – because a lot of that knowledge remains to be understood.

3.  Rather than honouring the body as the exceedingly complex systems that it is, we keep looking for the individual gene that has gone awry or for the one “secret” that can improve our health. This kind of short-sightedness had led us far astray. 

The Medical Treatment for Cancer

1.  When Murray (Nobel laureate in physics) said to me point-blank, “Look at cancer as a system,” I really began to rethink everything – about cancer and our approach to treating it; about illness and our approach in medicine in general … I couldn’t help but ask myself: Is our way of looking at cancer keeping us from curing it? Moreover, does this faulty perspective preclude us from treating anything in medicine successfully?

2.   We’ve got a serious problem on our hands if all the intelligence and money currently going toward cancer are doing next to nothing in this so-called war. It’s time to change not only how we think about cancer … We need a radically different way of thinking…

3.   Cancer treatment is the place where we take the most risks in medicine because, frankly, there’s little hope for survival in many cases, and the cure is as evasive today as it ever was. I’m infuriated by the statistics, disappointed in the progress that the medical profession has made, and exasperated by the backward thinking that science continues to espouse, which no doubt cripples our hunt for the magic bullet.

4.  If you come to me for help in treating advanced cancer detected late in the game, your game is likely to be over soon. I don’t say this … to sound insensitive; I say it because it’s the truth … it’s a shame that the technology and innovation in medical research and treatment are so archaic, outdated, and, dare I say, in some cases barbaric.

5.  Despite chemotherapy’s being a widely used treatment for cancer, nobody has ever shown that most chemotherapy actually touches a cancer cell. It’s never been proven. Researchers can perform all this elegant work in tissue-culture dishes – if I expose a cell to this cancer drug, here’s what happens, and so on – but doses in those dishes are nowhere near the doses, nor the environment, that happens in the body.

6.  The death rate from cancer from 1950 to 2007 didn’t change much.  We are making enormous progress against other chronic diseases, but little against cancer. With the more common deadly cancers, including those that ravage the lung, colon, breast, prostate and brain we’ve had an embarrassingly small impact on death rates. The lack of change in the death rate from cancer is truly alarming. How can this be? What did we do wrong in our research?

7.   Doctors such as myself arrive at solutions through plain old trial and error, and therefore we can’t always explain how things work. I can’t always tell you why a certain drug works or how it works other than to say I have seen results proving that it does. I also can’t always give you’re a straight answer as to which course of therapy might work for you. In fact, doctors – myself included – don’t actually know why these drugs kill cancer cells at all! There’s a lot of trial and error in my business. We don’t have the technology yet to precisely predict what medicine you’ll respond to or which one will work best. 

8.   When cancer is exposed to chemotherapy, drug-resistant mutants can escape. In other words, just as resistant strains of bacteria can result from antibiotic use, anticancer drugs can produce resistant cancer cells. The number of mutations shoots up exponentially as a cancer patient is treated with drugs such as chemotherapy, which inherently causes more mutations.   When chemotherapy drugs bind to DNA, they can cause cancer just as radiation can cause cancer by mutating the genome. This helps explain why survivors of breast cancer, for instance, can suffer  from leukemia later in life due to the chemotherapy they received to cure their breast cancer.

9.   It’s human nature to want to find magic bullets in medicine, but they happen once in a blue moon, and we may already have had all of our blue-moon moments. We haven’t found many new pills lately that really cure diseases. This is why the pharmaceutical industry is somewhat broken right now; it has run out of … a magical chemical that cures a disease. I don’t think we’re likely to find a lot more of those; it seems like a waste of time, money, and resources to keep looking for these magic bullets. We need a different approach – a new model.

Many doctors and authors before this have been saying similar things about cancer treatment. Dr. David Agus – one of America’s outstanding oncologist – has decided to join in the chorus. Let the song plays on to full volume!


Related post:  Book Review: The End Of Illness By Dr David Agus, M.D. by  Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

Meaningless Shrinking of Tumour by Chemotherapy

YHC (H856) is a 68-year-old man. In November 2011, he had a swelling in his right collar bone region. A biopsy was done and the doctor suspected it was cancer. YHC went to another hospital for a second opinion. A CT scan of his brain and neck was performed on 14 December 2011. The results indicated:

  • Normal examination of brain.
  • Right supraglottic soft tissue (upper part of the larynx, the area above the vocal cords) prominence raises the possibility of a tumour.
  • Bilateral supraclavicular and superior mediastinal nodes are in keeping with metastatic nodes. The largest seen on the left measuring 3.5 cm.

YHC underwent chemotherapy. The first cycle of chemo almost “knocked” him off. The side effects came six days after the treatment. He had to be hospitalised because of fevers, vomiting and diarrhea. Because of this the oncologist reduced the dosage of the subsequent chemo. So YHC went through the second to sixth cycles of chemo without any problem. However, after the sixth chemo, YHC had to be hospitalized again due to pneumonia. He was in the ICU for a week and this treatment alone cost him RM 30,000.



Study the results below.

CT scan on 27 January 2012

Comparison made with previous CT dated 14 December 2011,

  1. The prominence of the right supraglottic soft tissue is reduced when compared with the previous scan.
  2. Bilateral supraclavicular enlarged nodes are partially regressed.
  3. A small pericardial effusion is present.
  4. There are confluent nodes in the mediastinum which compress the superior vena cava. There are also confluent right hilar nodes. The approximate size of the confluent nodes is 6.4 x 4.8 x 3.7 cm.
  5. There is mild thickening of the gastroesophageal wall.

CT scan on 5 March 2012

  1. There is further regression of prominent right supraglottic soft tissue.
  2. Bilateral supraclavicular modes are still present.
  3. The anterior mediastinal soft tissue mass due to confluent nodes is smaller, measuring 4.2 x 3.4 x 3.3 cm. It still compresses the superior vena cava. Confluent right hilar nodes also appear smaller. There are discrete nodes overlying the aortic arch which are also slightly reduced in size.
  4. There is a new finding of bilateral pleural effusion, larger on the right, associated with right lung basal ateletasis. There is also partial collapse-consolidation of the right upper lobe.

CT scan on 28 March 2012

  1. The mediastinal mass of confluent nodes has increased in size. The paratracheal component of the mass is 5.0 x 3.5 x 5.4 cm severely compressing the superior vena cava.
  2. The anterior mediastinal lymph nodes have also increased in size, measuring up to 1.5 cm.
  3. A right pleural effusion is noted.

Impression:  Bronchogenic carcinoma with mediastinal lymph nodes increased in size from the previous examination.


This case really baffled me. YHC was first told that he probably had a lymphoma. Because of that, the oncologist only looked at his brain and the neck when they took the CT scan.  The medical report on 27 January 2012 indicated … “lymphadenopathy likely due to metastatic nodes with differential diagnosis of lymphoma.”

However, when all the chemos were done, the report on 28 March 2012 – for the first time, mentioned “bronchogenic carcinoma with mediastinal lymph nodes.”

Does this mean that after all the chemos were completed, “someone” decided that his cancer was actually a lung cancer? So, was he treated correctly in the first instance? YHC’s biopsy report was given the oncologist who later misplaced or lost it. Imagine such thing can happen in a private hospital!

The second fact was just as equally baffling. Let us look at the condition of his lungs before and after the treatments. His lungs were getting worse after chemotherapy!


One important lesson we can learn from this case is that shrinking of tumour or mass after chemotherapy is meaningless   – indeed, it is misleading and has no meaning.  Let me highlight the important points again. After the first few chemos the mass became smaller and smaller as evidenced by the CT scan. So everybody was happy – the patient was happy, his family members were happy and the oncologist was equally happy. But do we (especially those who see this happen every day) not realize through experience that this shrinking of tumour is meaningless? Experience shows that the mass would grow in size again soon afterwards. The previous gain is often lost after more chemos. Is this not what happened most of the time?

Let us go back to the CT scan reports again:

26 January 2012: Right supraglottic soft tissue is reduced in size. Bilateral supraclavicular nodes are partially regressed.

5 March 2012: There is further regression of right supraglottic soft tissue.

28 March 2012:  The mediastinal mass has increased in size. Anterior mediastinal nodes have also increased in size.

One would want to believe that with more and more chemotherapy, the mass will go on reducing in size until it disappears. No, this did not happen! And this phenomenon occurs often!  Read what Dr. Ralph Moss said below:



Chemotherapy did not cure him. In fact the treatment made him worse. But the doctor told YHC to continue with more chemo and radiotherapy.  YHC refused further medical treatment saying, “I would have to do more and more chemo and eventually “bye, bye!” He had spent more than RM 100,000 and was not going anywhere. Even the oncologist told him, “more chemo is not going to make him better. His condition would turn from bad to worse.” Why do more chemo then?

To me, the crucial point is not whether the tumour shrinks or not, but rather can the cancer be cured by the treatment.  If the treatment cannot cure, then shrinking of tumour is meaningless. I would prefer to advise patients to be happy and just be contented if they feel better after the treatment rather than place their hope on a shrinking tumour that brings them nowhere.