To Gammill of the Center for the Study of Natural Oncology

[Guest guest]

,

In the recent " ceramide " thread, wrote:

<< Always go with what you see clinically and repeatedly even if it is not

nearly as exquisitely crafted as a treasured theory. >>

I appreciate the mission of your " Center for the Study of Natural

Oncology " .

_http://www.natural-oncology.org/mission2.htm_

(http://www.natural-oncology.org/mission2.htm)

In your observations, research and communications with doctors, patients,

and others, do you feel that you have been able to get somewhat of a clear

picture of what repeatedly works (and what does not) for various different

types of cancers?

If so, are you able to summarize at all? Any quick notes to share? Maybe

some broad generalities or universal principles?

Thank you very much for your time.

peace and healing,

Glen from Illinois

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814855x1201410739/aol?red

ir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=A

prilfooter426NO62)

[Guest guest]

Glen,

I waited a few days before answering this as I am very busy

with the program and I also wanted to think about a response. The

answer would be far to long -- probably book length, but I would like

to start on it nonetheless.

When a patient comes into contact with a conventional

physician, certain interactions are standard. The physician quickly

tries to get to core issues. There is a review of records and a

history and physical with a review of systems. Often a SOAP format

is used: subjective, objective, assessment, plan. Everything is cut

down to the essentials with an eye on not wasting time or money as

this is all about production. The big hero of this system is Henry

Ford and the invention of mass production. Patients are quickly

sorted to determine their pigeonhole, or which conveyor belt is the

best choice. Selection criteria include what is covered by their

insurance plan and proper coding to maximize

reimbursement. Treatment choices are formulaic and standard of

care. For the physician to stay within narrow officially limned

boundaries will minimize the risk of downstream litigation.

There is an implicit social contract between the physician and

the patient. There are many variations of this. From the cancer

doc's perspective it may be one of " Let us both fantasize that I am

going to help you, " or " I know you don't like doctors, well I don't

like patients, " or " I know you think you pay too much, but I should

be paid a lot more considering that my intelligence is so superior to

yours. " These are not the sort of social contracts that are

harbingers of favorable outcomes.

The doctor-patient relationship is just the latest cultural

update of our whole western Christian tradition going back to the

dark ages and before. We may now think that there is a qualitative

difference in modern medicine in that it is now " evidence based, " but

hundreds of years ago it was also evidence based. Just to be sick

was evidence that you probably entertained certain heretical notions

and trial by ordeal could prove the robustness of this

concept. There are no significant qualitative differences between

the ways medicine is practiced now and the ways it has always been practiced.

When program participants comes to our retreat center I make

certain assumptions. I see them as completely cocooned and befuddled

with bias (both personal and ambient) and probably their bodies are

loaded with toxins. My initial job is one of understanding the

person. Cancer is unnatural for mammals. We don't recognize this

fact as we see so much of it, but cancer was extremely rare in

primitive cultures and it is difficult to give cancer to laboratory

animal models unless we first tamper with their immune systems.

At our retreat center we don't deal with acute problems. Acute

medical care, with a few caveats, is usually quite adequate in the

US. The rule of thumb is this: if you have a serious acute problem,

go to the ER, do the minimum necessary, and get out. Do your best

to avoid admission as a patient.

In the future I will write about the assessment of people as

human beings. It is a slow process that doesn't lend itself to the

usual medical models. It is a matter of respect for the health care

advisor to really get to know the person. This is absolutely the

most intimate activity that a human can do with another human -- work

together to save a life. I find it almost nauseating that this is

usually subject to an exchange of money.

At 12:08 PM 4/26/2009, you wrote:

>,

>

>In the recent " ceramide " thread, wrote:

>

><< Always go with what you see clinically and repeatedly even if it is not

>nearly as exquisitely crafted as a treasured theory. >>

>

>I appreciate the mission of your " Center for the Study of Natural

>Oncology " .

>

>_<http://www.natural-oncology.org/mission2.htm_>http://www.natural-oncology.org\

/mission2.htm_

>

>(http://www.natural-oncology.org/mission2.htm)

>

>In your observations, research and communications with doctors, patients,

>and others, do you feel that you have been able to get somewhat of a clear

>picture of what repeatedly works (and what does not) for various different

>types of cancers?

>

>If so, are you able to summarize at all? Any quick notes to share? Maybe

>some broad generalities or universal principles?

>

>Thank you very much for your time.

>

>peace and healing,

>Glen from Illinois

[Guest guest]

That was a wonderful thing to say...and so vvery true. Wish all the doctors

could understand this simple truth.

'This is absolutely the most intimate activity that a human can do with another

human -- work together to save a life.'