The man referred to at
sumeria.netrectcan.htmlOpen ↗ has died. He has
been mentioned here before. All should read his story.
Neil used alternative treatments, and dozens of them, for a
rectal cancer. I feel rather sad at his death, as I got to
know him quite well through his posts, and corresponded with
him on a couple of occasions. I once tried to get him to
reconsider surgery.
This is what the person mostly responsible for Neil's
selection of treatments has to say about it ----
"Neil Jensen died about a month ago I am sad to say. He
was very generous in trying to help out other cancer
patients, but having been independent all his life, he
found it very difficult to ask others for help. He could
be rather stoic about his situation and he did not
discuss his rapid deterioration. Previously he did well
using a variety of natural treatments from many sources.
He long out all the predictions of his conventional VA
physicians."
Neil left a full enough account of his progress for us to
know that the only treatment among dozens that produced even
temporary objective benefit was an incomplete debulking of
the tumour by a quack Mexican surgeon, who should be shot at
dawn for performing surgery that he should know would
produce only temporary benefits.
The fact that Neil lived on for three years with only local
symptoms such as pain, bleeding, bowel difficulties
(including incontinence) and bladder symptoms simply
suggests that he had a very slowly growing tumour with
little metastatic potential. He thus had an excellent chance
of being cured by surgery. Note that within alternative
medicine medical opinion is held to be worthless and
dominated by venal self-interest unless it happens include
unwise predictions regarding the progress of a newly
diagnosed cancer. It can then be employed to make
alternative treatments look as though they did something,
when the progress is well within the range of rates of
progression of cancers..
Neil was a strong believer in conspiracies of various types,
including the one about the suppression of effective cancer
cures. He embarked on his program of self-cure with great
confidence.
He had, of course, an absolute right to reject the offered
surgery with its probable need for a colostomy. Yet it is
fair to ask what his choice would have been if he had access
to more accurate information about his prospects with the
alternatives. He certainly got to test them out exhaustively
under quite favourable conditions (no prior chemotherapy or
radiotherapy). He even had the guidance of a self-proclaimed
"expert" who presents himself as being up with the latest
and greatest of the "alternatives" (Sorry, Vince, if you get
to read this).
This is not a clear example of patient choice. It might be
if the prospects of cure with alternative treatments were
not such a closely guarded secret. I don't blame him for
wanting to avoid a colostomy, but his ultimate misery was
far worse.
Peter Moran