I don't know if some of you have watched the 9 part long documentary "The Truth About Cancer A Global Quest" that was very strongly advertised all over the internet for a good number of weeks before it was finally broadcast last week and the week before. You were able to watch each episode live and afterwards for 24 hours before it was taken down and replaced by the next one.
The documentary, for those who haven't heard of it and haven't watched it, was made by a guy who claims to have lost both his parents to cancer and, due to that loss, decided to go on this global quest to find out about alternative ways of treating and possibly curing cancer.
There are good things and bad things to say about the documentary from my point of view, and I find this so important that I have actually made a podcast about it which you can find here:
Well, the only good thing I can say about the documentary is that I feel that our conventional medicine is concentrating very heavily on three pilars of cancer treatments: Chemo, radiation and surgery, and that it may be very helpful to look into alternative ways, especially natural medicine, for treating and possibly curing cancer. I am sure that there are lots of little things nature has to offer and lots of little things we can do to help decrease tumor growth and to lessen side-effects of conventional medicine and maybe even to become cancer free one day.
But, while the initiative, this global quest, was good, I feel that there is a lot wrong with this documentary.
1. In the documentary we get regularly told that especially Chemotherapy is a terrible drug because it is so aggressive and because it creates a lot of terrible side-effects which can be life-threatening or even take life. And then we get reminded that the same substances that are used in Chemotherapy drugs today were used to kill soldiers during the second world war. So far so good. All this is fact. However, we then get asked a very provocative question which is: How can something that was previously used to kill people be supposed to be a cure for people today? And this is an outrageous and highly irresponsible thing to say! It is outrageous because, through this question, they documentary crew is creating a link between facts which doesn't exist. Yes, the substances were used during the war to kill. And yes, today these substances are used to treat and cure. But all these facts have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. I am sure of that anyway. And to say that they have is highly irresponsible because people like all of us here on the forum are in difficult situations, and I am sure there are many more people out there, who are in a difficult situation, maybe because they have to make the decision of whether to go for conventional cancer treatments, which includes Chemotherapy, or whether to go for alternatives, but when people hear this twisted argument from the documentary, they may turn against conventional treatments, and they may be the very ones that can be a life-savor!
2. The second thing I didn't like about the documentary has to do with credibility. Many doctors and many therapies are featured in the documentary, and I took a lot of time to look each and every one of them up on Google. And what you find, unfortunately, is that, while there is something good to say about all the doctors and all the therapies, there is always some kind of problem: either the doctors had to stop practising because the therapies they were using weren't approved, or they charged a fortune for their particular therapy approach, and in some cases there was simply not sufficient research to show that this therapy or another would be effective in treating and curing cancer. I would have much preferred if they had said: Okay, you have the conventional medicine on one hand, but you have on the other hand alternative treatments that we want to show you, most of which, unfortunately, are not as much researched as the conventional ones, but now you have at least the information of what is out there and you can decide what to do.
3. My third criticism of this documentary has to do with creating fear. I think we have enough fear as it is in the world, we don't need anymore. But what else is it when we get told all the time throughout the whole documentary that we have been brain-washed by the pharmaceutical industry to believe in the conventional medicine, that the conventional medicine is only a big money-making machine, and even going so far that, at times, we get drugs prescribed that will make us more sick so that we can stay sick and give them more money. To some extend it is of course true that the pharmaceutical industry has a lot to do with money. But what hasn't? And, also, the conventional cancer treatments are the best ones we currently have!
I am only sharing all this with you because I feel that, if you have watched this documentary, it would be great to open a conversation about it. Some of the things mentioned in it are perhaps something that some of us want to take to heart - for example, there was a lot of good dietry advice in it -, but we have to be careful not to glorify alternative treatments.
Those are my thoughts anyway. It would be interesting to see what others think.