Pancreatic cancer has come to the fore of public awareness recently with news of several famous celebrities who 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 advice on pancreatic cancer has made financial analysts speculate whether his dramatic weight loss is due to the return of cancer.
Perhaps the most poignant case of pancreatic cancer to come to the attention of the world’s public in recent years is the case of Professor Randy Pausch, 47, of Carnegie Mellon University. The Internet video of his upbeat “Last Lecture,” released on September 18, 2007, catapulted him to world 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 conventional medicine offers, it is easy to see why there is great interest in alternative cures for pancreatic cancer.
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 nearly a century. There are very good reasons for this controversy. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars are at stake.
These great risks tend to polarize the points of view in two conflicting fields. In one field, major 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 “charlatans” who must be exposed to protect a vulnerable and desperate population from being taken advantage of and succumbing to “false hopes.”
Alternative proponents, on the other hand, point to the inherent conflict of interest in investigative agencies and support foundations that would cause their own demise by succeeding in their stated goal of finding “a cure for cancer.” In addition, they note that, by “protecting a gullible public,” they are also protecting the huge profits of the multi-billion dollar cancer treatment industry, which thrives as the disease continues.
As in discussions of religion and politics, rational considerations of evidence generally quickly turn into emotional defenses of previously held positions. Therefore, the purpose of my article is not to convince supporters of conventional medicine that alternative cures for cancer already 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 led to a highly effective alternative treatment for cancer. What was your great discovery? It showed that viruses cannot proliferate, or even survive, in an environment that has high levels of oxygen. Dr. Warburg is quoted as saying, “If a cell is deprived of 35% of its oxygen for 48 hours, it can become cancerous.” According to researcher Madison Cavanaugh, Dr. Warburg “further stated that the main cause of cancer is insufficient oxygen at the cellular level, and that cancer cells cannot survive in an environment with high oxygen content.”
Of course, this raises an obvious question: “Will increasing oxygen in the body of a cancer patient eradicate the cancer?” In fact, this is the million dollar question, literally. It’s a simple question, and you would expect that in the 80 years since Dr. Warburg’s research was published, there would have been substantial research to answer it. In fact, there has been substantial research on what are called bio-oxidative therapies to cure cancer, with truly amazing results. Almost all of this research has been done by European doctors and scientists.
Why haven’t you heard of this research? The simple answer is because these procedures cannot be patented. Some forms can even be easily self-administered, at home, in several minutes. Consequently, there is no financial incentive for any company to conduct strict, double-blind clinical trials, the only “test” acceptable to the medical profession, or to invest in commercializing these treatments.
On the contrary, there is 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 advocates of conventional medicine and advocates of alternative cancer treatments. Whether this deadlock will ever be resolved is not the most important concern for people who have been diagnosed with cancer. Each individual can view all the information and make an informed decision for their particular situation, in consultation with the medical professional of their choice.
Simply learning about anecdotally proven alternative cures for cancers that have so far challenged conventional treatments, such as pancreatic cancer, can provide the individual with realistic hope and determination to seek answers outside of conventional sources.