Sigh........
JW's in Australia had a phase of buying some ointment to cure skin cancer. Whilst visiting they asked me to take a look. It was a natural cure that indeed did remove tumours from the skin.
The cure was a black goo, a natural yet expensive ointment that was simply an acid. It burned the tumor and everything else away. By this standard of science a drill can be considered a cure for cancer of the skin, as would be a machete, or a chainsaw. A surgeons knife just happens to be tidier. Add to this that radiation is natural, chemotherapy is natural, EVERYTHING is natural. Don't fall for the pseudo 'natural' nonsense.
Treatments are chosen based on number needed to treat to save one life, I.e. efficacy. Price is also an issue.
There is no conspiracy, there is no cover ups. We don't spend bazillions on smear tests and mammograms for fun, we are looking for cancer and treating it as best we can.
Radiotherapy shrinks cancers. It also slows them down, can halt them.
Tumors are removed either by surgery or killed by chemicals.
This goo indeed removed tissues, because it was an acid, rub it on a tumor or a testical and watch it go! A 'cancer' however is a tumor that has spread, I.e. not benign. No acid or chainsaw can chase tumours around the body. That's where modern medicine is working wonders. Testicular cancer can spread to every region of the body, yet we have amazing cure rates.
Any doctor can publish their findings and become a leading, world changing expert. It happened just a few months ago when a doctor dared to treat a baby with HIV and cured it. Her work was published to be examined, tested and considered.
Sham cures don't publish. They can't publish.
Some people publish in publications THEY have created, you will have never heard of them (unlike Nature, JAMA, BMJ etc) and their IMPACT FACTOR will identify that. This is a number that allows others to appreciate the reliability of the journal being published in. The creation scientists out there have their own papers that they have to publish in their own journal. Scientists tear those papers in half within days of publishing. It is like watching a man walk naked down the street, with nipple clamps on. Its just Embarassing for everyone.
If one does publish, the data has to add up. What are the p values, what are the confidence intervals? Was it a RCT? Was it done well?
The best of current evidence which is used by good doctors is based on a confidence of 95%.
Until someone has a better idea..... This is the best we have. Don't settle for less, there is no need. This doesn't mean there are not undiscovered cures or ideas. But it means there is a proper method of testing them without fear of corruption or fraud or danger to humans.
in the UK a doctor released a paper claiming that the MMR vaccine was connected to autism. He changed his data fraudulently and changed family interviews and dates of disease onset. Autism arrives in the child's behaviour at the same time as certain parts of the brain mature. This is why we give MMR at that time. The timing is a coincidence, but then in reality it is not, its why autism presents at that time and why we vaccinate at that time. There was no connection. The UK government has spent 10 years researching it and found it all to be false. This very year people are still dying due to parents not vaccinating their children for MMR.
The doctor responsible owned a patent........ For a single MMR vaccine and was paid by the company who bought it to do the study.
If you wish to invest in alternative medicines, cool, we are all freee to do so. But I suggest you are at least as vigorous with their data, their motives and their methods as peer review is. There is a reason they are not daring to publish.