I have had some inquiries about my approach to cancer. It is a good question, because there needs to be an alternative approach to cancer. Let me give an example of why:
A few years ago a woman in her 80s presented at my office for treatment of her fatigue. I gave her a homeopathic remedy, and over the space of a couple months, her fatigue was gradually improving. Her progress was interrupted. Her allopathic doctor discovered a large mass in her lung. A biopsy was taken and a diagnosis of lung cancer came from the pathologist. Her doctor immediately sent her to the oncologist. This oncologist ended the appointment by telling her—the way a family member tells it he practically called it out over his shoulder while walking out the door—“You’ll start chemotherapy on Monday.”
After the first chemotherapy treatment her fatigue not only returned, it markedly increased. A month after starting chemotherapy she was dead. For me the most problematic part of this is that she did not want chemotherapy. I know this because she told me. A few members of her family urged her to have it. Her personality was such that she followed the oncologists’s order and bowed to the wishes of desperate family members, who were unable to deal with her—or their own—mortality. Not everyone in her family wanted her to have chemotherapy; it became a family deeply divided. After her death, there was anger and bitterness to process along with the grief. It was a disaster, medicine at its worst, and it all came with a million-dollar price tag. Perhaps needless to say, my opinion of oncology, never good to begin with, darkened, and has never quite recovered.
As this story suggests, chemotherapy is often an “eyewash,” which does little to cure the cancer. There are some very important exceptions, of course, and it is important to know what these are—and to have a doctor who will tell you if you are unable to dig to find out for yourself. There are situations where I would choose chemotherapy if I had cancer, but not many. Given how debilitating chemotherapy tends to be, its low probability of cure in most instances, not to mention its enormous cost, alternatives are necessary.
From my perspective, cancer arises from deep, 4th level (if not even deeper) dynamics, and I can always see what is being expressed by the cancer after taking a good case. The problem is that cancer arises from the 4th level but soon becomes an overwhelming 1st level (physical/material) reality. Overwhelming 1st level problems (a broken bone, e.g.) need an approach at that level. Thus, even the best homeopaths have had difficulty treating it from the classical approach, because shifting the 4th level with an accurate prescription usually does not allow the 1st level disease to shift. It seems that cancer cells ignore the message to heal. It is because of this that an aggressive, often toxic 1st level treatment can be effective in many instances and needs to be considered.
For some time now, there has been a non-classical approach homeopathic approach to cancer. The approach has been more multiple-remedy homeopathy focused straight at the 1st level physical disease. Because I have strongly focused on 4th level treatment, I was not keen on hearing about it. I did have to admit that some of the stories of success may have been true. As I have come to acknowledge that cancer needs a 1st level approach, I have shifted my perspective. My current approach to cancer is as follows:
1) Take the case deep (4th level) and give the appropriate 4th level homeopathic remedy
2) Go after the cancer itself (1st or physical level) with low potency homeopathic remedies, taken on a daily basis, that equate with the physical disease.
3) Give a well-honed, immune-boosting nutriceutical protocol.
4) Give a nutriceutical detoxification protocol
5) If available, use an acupuncturist who knows how to unload the tremendous toxicity that develops in the meridians (3rd level). See my following blog from last year to read about this: Share on Facebook