But the proposal and the reasoning which justify it seem to be quite different than, say, avoiding surgery because of the risks of surgery per se. The analagous situation vis-a-vis surgery would be avoiding surgery because of the risk of spreading cancer as the tumor is removed, when leaving it alone might avoid that risk.

My grandmother died from gallbladder cancer spread to her entire abdominal cavity by poor surgical practice — the surgeon didn’t bother waiting for biopsy results before removing the gallbladder, and thus didn’t take any precautions to avoid spreading cancer. Yet to this day the ACS asserts in no uncertain terms that it is a myth that cancer can be spread through surgery. When pressed they will admit privately that without special precautions it is possible, but assert that today those precautions are used universally.

But avoiding surgery because of the risk of spreading cancer, while it also avoids the risks associated with surgery per se (death or complications due to anaesthesia, infection, blood loss, etc.), is only as reasonable as avoiding surgery because of the risk of spreading cancer.

It is a little like saying you shouldn’t break a mirror because it will result in seven years of bad luck, while pointing out that mirror breaking can lead to lacerations of the hand.

In my early 30’s she was diagnosed with colon cancer. She had the tumor removed with NO RADIATION and definitely no chemo. She had to find a doctor who would do the surgery without them. She controls what is left of the colon cancer with alternative therapy and good diet. If her numbers are getting out of whack she steps up her dosage.

Both cancers were caught early, she has a positive attitude and does aggressive research. I’m now 45 and believe my mom is alive because she is controlling the cancer. Everyone else we know who has had chemo in the same amount of time is dead. After remission the cancer would come back and it would be EVERYWHERE. Then we would prepare to say goodbye to our friends.

Robert Gatenby of Moffitt Cancer Center is correct to advocate treating cancer this way, if at all possible. My mom has excellent quality of life. I’m glad she had the guts to take a different course. I would do the same thing if diagnosed.

1. Diabetes, and many cardio-vascular diseases with life-long treatment, have as the underlying cause an imbalance. Eliminating the cause altogether (blood sugar, blood pressure, heart beats) would kill the patient.

2. Other diseases with life-long treatment are only that way because there is no cure (HIV and other retro-virus infections for example).

3. I don’t know how cancer works, but I’ve always heard that taking too little of an antibiotic would guarantee infection with resistant bacteria. Maybe just giving a little chemo to shrink a tumor would do something similar, in which case it would seem to guarantee the outcome that the novel treatment seeks to avoid — a drug-resistant tumor — but a much larger one than would likely be left over from a large chemo dose.

Trying to eradicate a cancer may be like swinging for a home run. It’s great if you get it. Anyone would rather get a home run than a base hit. But an unsuccessful home run attempt is likely to be an out. Maybe we should play small ball. Of course this all depends on context. Cancer isn’t one single disease, it’s hundreds of diseases.