Pancreatic cancer has come to the forefront of public awareness recently with news of several famous celebrities that have been diagnosed with this difficult to treat form of cancer. Luciano Pavarotti lost his life to pancreatic cancer in September, 2007. Patrick Swayze is fighting for his life, against this disease, as I write. Steve Jobs’ previous bout of pancreatic cancer has caused financial analysts to speculate whether his dramatic weight loss is due to the cancer’s return.
Perhaps the most touching case of pancreatic cancer that has come to worldwide public attention in the last few years, is the case of 47 year old Professor Randy Pausch, of Carnegie Mellon University. The Internet video of his upbeat “last lecture,” presented on September 18, 2007, catapulted him to world-wide fame and inspired millions of viewers. Sadly, less than a year later, he died of complications from pancreatic cancer.
The American Cancer Society estimates that 37,680 Americans get pancreatic cancer each year. The five-year survival rate in the US is only 5%. Given the bleak prospects offered by conventional medicine, it’s easy to understand why there is keen interest in pancreatic cancer alternative cures.
Alternative treatments and cures for all forms of cancer, however, is one of the most controversial topics in all of medicine, and has been for almost a century. There are very good reasons for this controversy. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars are at stake.
These high stakes tend to polarize viewpoints into two conflicting camps. In one camp, mainstream medical organizations claim that a general “cure for cancer” has not yet been found. Thus, according to these authorities, those who claim that cancer can be cured are unscrupulous “quacks” who must be exposed to protect a vulnerable, and desperate, population from being taken advantage of, and succumbing to “false hope.”
Alternative proponents, on the other hand, point out the conflict of interest inherent in research agencies and support foundations that would cause their own demise by succeeding in their stated goal of finding “a cure for cancer.” They further point out that, in “protecting a gullible public,” they are also protecting the enormous profits of the billion dollar cancer treatment industry, which thrives on the continuation of the illness.
As in discussions of religion and politics, rational considerations of evidence usually turn quickly into emotional defenses of previously held positions. Thus the purpose of my article is not to convince supporters of mainstream medicine that alternative cures for cancer already do exist. My purpose is to share with those who are curious and open minded, one of the most promising therapies among alternative cancer cures, which applies particularly well to pancreatic cancer because it is a systemic treatment.
In 1931, Dr. Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize in Physiology for research that has since lead to a very effective alternative cancer treatment . What was his breakthrough discovery? He proved that viruses can not proliferate, or even survive, in an environment that has high levels of oxygen. Dr. Warburg is quoted as saying, “Deprive a cell of 35% of its oxygen for 48 hours and it may become cancerous.” According to researcher Madison Cavanaugh, Dr. Warburg “further stated that the prime cause of cancer is insufficient oxygen at the cellular level, and that cancer cells cannot survive in a high oxygen environment.”
Of course this raises an obvious question, “Will increasing the oxygen in the body of a cancer patient eradicate the cancer?” In fact, this is the million-dollar question, literally. It is a simple question, and you would expect that in the 80 years since publication of Dr. Warburg’s research, there would have been substantial research to answer it. In fact, there has been substantial research into what are called bio-oxidative therapies for curing cancer, with truly amazing results. Almost all of this research has been carried out by European doctors and scientists.
Why have you not heard of this research? The simple answer is because these procedures cannot be patented. Some forms can even be self-administered easily, at home, in several minutes. Consequently, there is no financial incentive for any company to do the strict, double blind, clinical trials, which is the only “proof” that is acceptable to the medical profession, nor to invest in marketing these treatments.
On the contrary, there is a great incentive to suppress and discredit this information, on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that sell the highly profitable, patented drugs to treat cancer.
This brings us back to the apparent stalemate between defenders of mainstream medicine and proponents of alternative cancer treatments. Whether this deadlock will ever be resolved is not the most important concern to individuals who have been diagnosed with cancer. Each individual can look at all the information and make an informed decision for their unique situation, in consultation with the medical professional of their choice.
Simply becoming aware of the existence of anecdotally proven alternative cures for cancers that have so far defied conventional treatments, such as pancreatic cancer, can provide an individual with realistic hope, and the determination to search for answers outside of conventional sources.