Although I’ve selected intravenous vitamin C on the basis that it seemed to offer scientific evidence to back up its efficacy as well as a track record of working, I’ve come to realise that selecting a complementary cancer treatment is quite hit-and-miss really.
Today I came across the best explanation for why some complementary therapies for cancer may work for some people and not others from the alternative cancer treatment website: http://alternativecancer.us/
“These Treatments are Different
You cannot pick an alternative cancer treatment the same way you pick your other medications.
Despite the enthusiastic claims of well meaning people: Just because [xx treatment] worked for someone else, that does not mean it will work for you.
Even though there are many viable alternative cancer treatments, there isn’t a “best” treatment for a certain type or stage of cancer. Most alternative cancer treatments only work on a minority of the people who try it.
A person’s unique body chemistry seems to be the most important consideration in selecting an alternative cancer treatment.”
I know it’s stating the obvious, but I appreciate the fact that at least they’re not trying to see the world of complementary treatments through rose-tinted lenses.
The site goes on to add that “Only energy medicine offers a selection method that takes body chemistry into account.”
By energy medicine, it promotes the use of kinesiology to test whether the agents used in alternative cancer treatments will work.
I’m not convinced of the accuracy of kinesiology, but I think that the site’s explanation for why some treatments will work and not others is one of the best I’ve seen – we’re all individuals with different body chemistries. (This is something that orthodox medicine fails to acknowledge as oncologists rely on the statistical analysis of large treatment trials to decide which drugs to use for specific cancers, which results in a slash-and-burn, one-size-fits-all approach to cancer patients).
I realise that I may have been too flippant in dismissing kinesiology. I’ve read Power vs Force by David Hawkins and at the time thought it was a work of genius, but I have had experience of muscle testing and am still not convinced that it was accurate. I think it depends on the skill of the kinesiologist.
One of the questions that was not satisfactorily answered was: for how long does the result apply? One week? One month? The kinesiologist told me that when asking the body what it needed she held the intention that the effect of the healing or agent should be over a month. Another thing that makes me uneasy about its accuracy is hearing stories of people whose kinesiologists have told them not to take a certain medication which resulted in adverse effects.
The http://alternativecancer.us/ site has a test kit of the energetic signatures of the top ten most popular cancer treatments to use with kinesiology. It’s a step towards helping people choose the most effective option for their bodies so that they don’t end up wasting a lot of money on treatments that don’t work.
It would be interesting to compare the results of testing using kinesiology with a blood test that runs the cancer cells in the blood against similar anti-cancer agents. Such a blood test now exists – I only found this out about 2 months ago. It’s called the RGCC chemo-sensitivity test and tests against chemotherapy as well as complementary agents. It costs approximately Euros 1,300. One of the drawbacks of this test is that it depends on the patient having circulating cancer cells in the body. The other drawback is that it’s conducted in vitro, i.e. in a laboratory, and this can never replicate the complex conditions in a human body. Nevertheless it is a step towards personalising cancer treatment and removing some of the guesswork in selecting an option.