Below I would like to provide you with a list of what the gold standard of allopathy (standard treatment) is for certain types of cancer. Perhaps you are thinking, “But there are certainly conventional text books for this”. Yes that is correct, but they do not include my critical comments. And from my years of experience I know that it is often the little things that make the difference as to why patients decide for this treatment, or for that treatment. Does the patient like the doctor, do the doctor’s statements come across well, is the clinic conveniently located often are more important decision-making factors than all the statistics in the world.
On the following pages I have put together a list that is compressed as possible, of those therapies that conventionally thinking doctor will offer you for your type of cancer. Space limitations prevent me from listing all possible therapies, or all that are known to me. However I am sure that I have listed the main theories and I offer my point of view.
Many a doctor would naturally clap his hands to his head and say: “It’s just not right. The author can’t keep patients away from such “vital” therapies as chemotherapy and radiation. But my response is that I am not keeping any patients away from anything.
If I permit myself to evaluate significant studies in a somewhat different manner than does your oncologist, then I am certainly not trying to confuse you, rather I would like to show you the other side of the coin. The fact that many doctors cannot take this much criticism is just something that I will have to live with and take their responses in stride.
But dear Dr. there is one thing that you should never forget in this regard. We share the same goal, and just as I accept your view of things, I also expect that in the interest of thousands of cancer patients you will accept the fact that there are other points of view. This is the only way that we can jointly be there for all the people who urgently need help. For those that maintain that their way is the right way, I can only recommend that rereading the Gospel of John (most importantly chapter 8, verse 7).
Let’s be honest. Isn’t it incredibly arrogant to maintain relative to cancer patients, that this or that is cancer and that it can only be treated with three or four therapies. I wouldn’t say anyting if objective progress had been made in recent years, particularly with epithelial types of cancer. But this is not the case; it’s not even close. All the statistics in the world clearly speak a different language. And as long as there are no proofs for a new beginning, I will permit myself to question therapies, again, again, and again.
Nor should we forget the studies that the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 284, July 26th 2000) published, namely that the allopathy has now become the third largest factor relative to fatality (after heart disease and cancer illlnesses). According to these studies approximately 225,000 people die in the USA due to doctors alone. Just imagine how many people die due to therapies. We should all tread a little more carefully when we maintain that we know how to treat cancer.
Now regarding treatment. Scientists at the McGill Cancer Center in the USA sent a questionaire to 118 oncologists and asked them which of the 6 usual therapies they would use on themselves. 79 doctors responded and of these, 64 said that they never would undergo a therapy with Cisplatin – quite a normal chemotherapy, with annual sales over 100 million Euros. Much worse however was the response of 58 of the 79 doctors, who said that they would never undergo chemotherapy because in the first place it is ineffective and secondly it is much too toxic. When I read this for the first time I only thought: “It is nothing new that doctors treat themselves or their wives differently.” But after I thought about all this and considered what it really means that app. 75% of the doctors written to prescribe therapies that they cannot stand behind, then I only had sympathy and anger. Sympathy for the patients who are sacrified. Sympathy for the doctors who daily must subject themselves to the schizophrenia of oncology, and a lot of anger directed toward all those who represent such a system as permenantly positive to the rest of the world.
Frequently I am caught in the contradiction of oncology when allopathic practitioners condescend to ask a non-doctor like me for advice, when they themselves or their families have cancer. On one hand such contacts confirm my work, on the other hand it is not always easy for me to deal with people who have fought against me for years. But I always think of a specific sentence in such situations: “Only dumb people never change their opinion and then I
welcome every doctor who uses his intelligence positively. In addition it helps me to remember what I would have done if I had had cancer.
When your doctor says to you that only the therapy that he prescribes is successful and that a, “Mr. Hirneise, who is not even a doctor, doesn’t know anything about oncology in Germany”, then at least you know that this is not right.
What is the gold standard of conventional oncology?
In the following pages I will show you as briefly as possible and in as much detail as is required
* The allopathic definition of your type of cancer
* The incidence of this type of cancer
* The subdivisions
* The stages of the illness
The TNMG system is employed worldwide to evaluate the tumor stage. This means:
T = Tumor stage. Stages 1-4.
N = Nodes (Latin nodus). Stages 0-3.
For anal cancer:
N0 = No lymph node metastases
N1 = Perirectal lymph node metastases
N2 = Inguinal lymph node metastases (in the groin) and on the internal iliac artery on one side.
N3 = Inguinal lymph node metastases (in the groin) and on the internal iliac artery on both sides.
M = Metastasis. Stages 0 (none) – 1.
G = Degree of cellular degeneration. Stages 1-4.
Practitioners call this differentiation.
G1 means that the cell is well-differentiated, i.e. quite similar to a normal cell.
G4 means a poorly differentiated cell, i.e. a cell, that is significantly different from a normal cell.
* How it is diagnosed by allopathic practitioners
* The allopathic therapy concepts,
usually organized in:
– Additional therapies like hormones, interferone,
The data come from medical textbooks and from published statistics. Perhaps you know the joke about statistics: What is the progression of a lie? Answer: “One lie, two lies, a statistic.”
Moreover you must know that statistics are flexible, they can be “bent” in all directions. I maintain that if you tell me the result that you want to substantiate in advance, then I will make each study appear to be right in my consideration through an appropriate study design, a “bent” evaluation, or by posing the “right” questions. This is why we must be very careful with the specified numbers.
There is something else that is often not taken into account. If a medication helps 99% of all patients, but triggers the most serious side effects for one percent, then initially this sounds quite positive. However if you belong to the 1% then this medication represents a 100% failure for you. If you are told about a particularly positive or negative study, then first ask:
* Who paid for the study?
* Who is served by the result of the study?
* What advantage is there for the person who is telling you
about this study?
You should only include the study in your considerations if all three questions can be answered to your satisfaction. I know from my own experience that this requires a lot of effort and often can only be accomplished with difficulty or with a significant time commitment – but what is the alternative? The alternative is clear: Faith instead of knowledge. Unfortunately in today’s medicine, the complete treatment of chronic illness (not emergency treatment) is built on this framework. And unfortunately we know how successful it is.