The enormous failure of conventional therapies are not the result of procedures themselves, but why and how they are used. First, the application is supported on a false premise: Cancerous tumors are the disease. In reality, the tumors are but a symptom of a metabolic failure that allowed them to grow. Removing or destroying tumors without taking the necessary steps to restore the organic deficiencies that cost them accounts for most cancer recurrences and deaths.
Success is measured by what happens to the tumor and not by what happened to the patient. The second reason for failure is the criteria with which surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are offered. If the cancer is aggressive, the therapy must be aggressive. Maximum tumor mass must be removed or radiated, as much as the patient can tolerate, and chemotherapy will be given.
All of these procedures, when it is understood that the disease is much more than the tumor, can be useful in limited cases to diminish tumor mass. My criteria for using them is whether I would be willing to receive it myself if I were in the same condition as my patient, and whether it is going to improve quality of life. Since in most cases the answer to both questions is no, I rarely use conventional therapies by themselves. The physical distress of conventional therapies coupled with the disappointing results causes many patients to demand alternatives.
Learn more about alternative treatments by clicking here.