Medical Treatments for Cancer

CHEMOTHERAPY TREATMENT#

When you average the benefit of chemotherapy across all cancers, the overall gain is just 2%. That may sound like a low cure rate—but that’s not what it is. It’s not 2% cured. It’s 2% who don’t die within five years. That’s a far cry from healing.

Chemotherapy is one of the most harmful medical interventions still widely used. It causes significant damage with little to no benefit in all but a very narrow set of cancers—and even in those, it still does not cure. So why do we continue using it? Because the cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar machine built on fear, emotion, and profit. Massive cancer organizations rake in donations by exploiting the vulnerability of the sick. Oncologists—most of whom personally profit by buying and reselling chemotherapy drugs—have a direct financial stake in prescribing it, sometimes making millions from these transactions. With that kind of conflict of interest, how can anyone seriously believe their recommendations are unbiased or in your best interest? If they truly had their patients’ best interests at heart, they would be honest about the risks.

One of those risks—rarely disclosed—is that chemotherapy ages the body, physically and permanently. A study published in Nature Genetics on July 1, 2025, highlights just how serious this is. A three-year-old treated with chemotherapy had blood cells that looked older than those of an 80-year-old who had never undergone chemo.^[1]The long-term effects of chemotherapy on normal blood cells This isn’t surprising when you understand how chemotherapy works. It damages DNA, and that damage is not limited to cancer cells. It harms healthy cells as well—especially stem cells and the immune system—compromising the body’s ability to repair and defend itself. This is precisely why chemotherapy cannot cure cancer. It depletes what the body needs to fight. There is strong evidence to believe that you would be better off doing absolutely no treatments and changing nothing in your life than to do chemotherapy.

Myelotoxicity and GC#

Chemotherapy is known to cause myelotoxicity or bone marrow suppression—a decrease in the production of leukocyte cells responsible for providing immunity. Something you do not want when dealing with an aggressive illness. Chemo can also suppress oxygen cells and thrombocytes responsible for modulating blood clotting. It’s important to note that if you die of one of these side effects, you can still be counted as a 5-year “cancer survivor” because you didn’t die of cancer. This is true, you died of cancer treatment, which is unfortunately how most cancer patients will die.

Suppression of the whole human system by chemotherapy leads to several new diseases that become life-threatening. Let us focus on one for a moment: Neutropenia. Neutropenia is an abnormally low number of neutrophils (white blood cells) in the blood which exponentially increases risk of infection and death. Definitely not a condition you want when you have cancer. But this condition is caused by the toxic chemo drugs. In a desperate attempt to save your life, the amazing human body will often produce a fever to muster remaining forces to meet the foe—the infection. Doctors will often (regrettably) treat this fever with an antipyretic, further multiplying risk of mortality.

A chemo-treatment-induced complication results in 40-50% of the total cost of hospitalization in cancer care.^[2]Hosiriluck, N. (2015). View of prognostic factors for mortality with febrile neutropenia in hospitalized patients | The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles Let that sink in. One of the most common treatments for cancer causes 50% of the hospital-related costs of cancer treatment. We will not even discuss the issue of doctors selling chemo for profit being a conflict of interests.

In a study of the effects of chemo-induced neutropenia in hospitalized patients, out of 127 people, 30-day mortality was 20.5%.^[3]Hosiriluck, N. (2015). View of prognostic factors for mortality with febrile neutropenia in hospitalized patients | The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles Yet, they will still count the deceased as a cancer survivor because they didn’t die of the cancer. If you’re starting to get mad, you haven’t seen anything yet! In the eyes of modern medicine if you die of treatment you are considered “cured” of the illness.

As is typical in high-profit medicine, instead of discontinuing ineffective and highly dangerous procedures, modern medicine simply attempts to treat the side-effects. One of the treatments for myelotoxicity (which is caused by chemotherapy) is something called granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF). The cost of GCSF treatment runs between $2,000–7,000 per day, with an average hospital admission cost for febrile neutropenia of $22,000^[4]MJH Life Sciences. (2017). The value of granulocyte colony stimulating factors in managing febrile neutropenia. AJMC. … Continue reading

That’s $2,000 a day for a treatment that can be completed naturally for a few dollars. Your chemo-profiting doctor will never tell you this, but we will!

NATURAL GCSF TREATMENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS#

HONEY#

Honey heated to 180 °C for 60 minutes or 200 °C for 15-30 minutes induces GCSF. This effect was linked to high levels of isomaltose which produces the GCSF. The website Cancer.gov lists GCSF as a treatment for neutropenia, which they admit is “caused by some types of chemotherapy”. However, they refuse to list honey as a source even though they have the research proving it. Instead, they list drugs costing thousands of doors. Follow the money trail!

SHO-SAIKO-TO#

Sho-saiko-to is a Chinese formula—(we don’t recommend Chinese supplements due to high toxicity levels, contamination, and other quality control concerns.) This formula consists of Scullcap, Licorice, Radix Bupleuri, Pinellia ternata, Ginseng, and Ginger and was shown to both increase production of tumor necrosis factor-alpha as well as GCSF.^[5]Yamashiki M;Nishimura A;Nomoto M;Suzuki H;Kosaka Y; (1996, February 11). Herbal medicine ‘sho-saiko-to’ induces tumour necrosis factor-alpha and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in vitro in … Continue reading These herbs also benefit the liver which is negatively impacted by chemotherapy. While we cannot recommend Chinese medicine, for the above reasons, you can buy all these herbs from reputable sources and use them as a tea or tincture with great benefit.

NATURAL TREATMENTS FOR BREAST CANCER#

FLAXSEED#

This seed is the richest source of lignans and α-linolenic acid or omega 3.  Flax has been researched for its effect on the growth and metastasis of established human breast cancer in mouse models. Compared with controls, those supplemented with 10% flaxseed showed a significant reduction in tumor growth rate and a 45% reduction in total incidence of metastasis. Lung metastasis incidence was 55.6% in the control group and 22.2% in the flaxseed group; the incidence of lymph node metastasis was 88.9% in controls and 33.3% in the flaxseed group. Number of metastatic lung tumors was reduced by 82% in the flaxseed group as well. The researchers concluded that flaxseed inhibits human breast cancer growth and metastasis in a mouse model and that this effect is due in part to the downregulation of insulin-like growth factor I and epidermal growth factor receptor expression^[6]Chen, J., Stavro, P. and Thompson, L., 2002. Dietary Flaxseed Inhibits Human Breast Cancer Growth and Metastasis and Downregulates Expression of Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor … Continue reading

In another study looking at tumor formation, mice were fed a basal diet (sufficient caloric diet), or a basal diet supplemented with 2.5%, 5%, or 10% flaxseed, for 2 weeks before and afterward an intravenous injection of 0.75 × 105 melanoma cells. The median number of tumors in mice fed the 2.5%, 5%, and 10% flaxseed-supplemented diets was 32%, 54%, and 63% lower, respectively, than that in controls. The addition of flaxseed to the diet also caused a dose-dependent decrease in tumor cross-sectional area and tumor volume. In other words, it both shrunk and reduced the number of tumors. Flaxseed reduced metastasis and inhibited the growth of metastatic secondary tumors in animals.^[7]Yan, L., Yee, J., Li, D., McGuire, M. and Thompson, L., 1998. Dietary flaxseed supplementation and experimental metastasis of melanoma cells in mice. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500208/

GRAPESEED#

Procyanidins, polythenols found in high quantities in grapeseed, are being studied as a chemopreventive agent against breast cancer through suppression of in situ estrogen biosynthesis^[8]ET, E., J, Y., D, W., S, P., RE, M., MK, Y., U, G., G, B. and S, C., 2003. Suppression of estrogen biosynthesis by procyanidin dimers in red wine and grape seeds. … Continue reading In a study of oral administration of grapeseed extract, the number of metastatic nodules induced was reduced by 26.07% compared with a control group treated with ethanol.

WHAT CAUSES BREAST CANCER?#

HEAVY METALS#

Many diseases are associated with heavy metals, and breast cancer is no exception. When 20 breast cancer biopsies were examined and compared to 8 healthy biopsy controls, the researchers found a “highly significant accumulation of iron, nickel, chromium, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and lead”. Copper and silver showed no significant differences between the two groups, however.^[9]JG, I., J, N., V, S., A, L., E, B. and M, E., 2006. Increased levels of transition metals in breast cancer tissue. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16804515/ This study and others find a very direct correlation between heavy metal accumulation in the body and free radical generation, DNA damage, tumor growth, and cancer spread. For breast cancer patients, a heavy metal cleanse would do well, and potentially arrest tumor growth. Tumors form in the body as a defense mechanism to prevent toxification.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH TESTING PROCEDURES#

MAMMOGRAMS#

After 14 years of follow-up mammography, a consistent correlation can be seen between mammogram testing and incident rate, immediately following the beginning of testing. The authors of a very controversial study on mammography conclude by stating:

“The figures from 14 years of mammography screening indicate that all increase in the incidence of breast cancer is due to over-diagnosis: findings of tumours that in the absence of screening would never have given rise to clinical illness.”^[10]Zahl, P. and Mæhlen, J., 2012. Overdiagnostikk av brystkreft etter 14 år med mammografiscreening. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22353833/

The purpose of this study was not to prove that mammograms cause cancer; other studies address that concern. The purpose is to show that women who would have never died of breast cancer are forced into an exhausting, brutal cascade of treatments that offer them no benefits in either quality of or extension of life—and arguably reduce longevity.

RADIOLOGY#

A scary study published in the International Journal of Radiology calls for reflection on the use of radiation in the treatment of cancer. Women who received radiation therapy for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma were found to have a very strong increased risk of breast cancer. To make this point, think of it like being in the African plain, and you’re being chased by some ferocious wild beast that is trying to kill you. As you are running for your life suddenly a jeep pulls up and a man says “Jump in quick!”. You happily oblige and as you are speeding off you turn to your benefactor to thank him but as you turn, he pulls out a gun and shoots you. This is how the medical system treatment for cancer works. Modern medicine swoops in to save you from a “ferocious” beast that wants to kill you, but their treatment ends up being your death. About 90% of the breast cancers in these patients were attributed to their radiation treatment.^[11]Broeks, A., Braaf, L., Wessels, L., van de Vijver, M., De Bruin, M., Stovall, M., Russell, N., van Leeuwen, F. and Van ‘t Veer, L., 2010. Radiation-Associated Breast Tumors Display a Distinct Gene … Continue reading This causes serious concern that cancer treatments are creating new disease for patients and actually reducing quality of life. This study also revealed that radiation-induced tumors are of a specific profile and feature high proliferation and aggressive tumor growth. In other words, you are far more likely to die of radiation-induced tumors then natural forming tumors.

BIOPSIES#

Biopsies possess the ability to create metastasis although this is a fact doctors do not discuss with patients. If asked, most doctors will downplay the significance. The risk however is explained in a peer-reviewed paper:

“Dislodging neoplastically altered cells from a tumor during biopsy or surgical intervention or during simple procedure like needle aspiration is a possibility because they lack cohesiveness, and they attain the capacity to migrate and colonize.”^[12]Shyamala, K., Girish, H. and Murgod, S., 2014. Risk of tumor cell seeding through biopsy and aspiration cytology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015162/

The authors go on to explain why this is such a likely possibility, citing case studies proving it does happen. They continue:

“Considering the fact that, every tumor cell, is bathed in interstitial fluid, which drains into the lymphatic system and has an individualized arterial blood supply and venous drainage like any other normal cell in our body, inserting a needle or a knife into a tumor, there is a jeopardy of dislodging a loose tumor cell into either the circulation or into the tissue fluid. Tumor cells are easier to dislodge due to lower cell-to-cell adhesion.

…after diagnostic biopsy of a tumor, many patients developed cancer at multiple sites and showed the presence of circulating cancer cells in the blood stream on examination.”^[13]Shyamala, K., Girish, H. and Murgod, S., 2014. Risk of tumor cell seeding through biopsy and aspiration cytology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015162/

Consider that few (if any) cancer patients are screened or tested after biopsy for cancer spread caused by the test itself. If many of those who were examined after biopsy are showing migration and metastasis following surgery or test, then we can see this is a concerning issue. One, two, or five years later when the cancer is discovered, doctors will act as though it is novel when in fact it likely resulted from their own tests.

This however is not new; Dr. Philip Rubin of the University of Rochester wrote in his book Clinical Oncology back in 1974 that surgical biopsies may contribute to the spread of cancer in some cases. For nearly 50 years, cancer societies have known this and have done NOTHING to study the risks associated with these tests. Why? Because the cancer society is built around money, not saving lives. That is why they use a ridiculous five-year survival rate instead of actual mortality rate. When you look at actual mortality rates for cancer treatment you find that “the emperor is naked” and the whole system is a cash cow being milked for all it is worth.

Risks studied in various cancers#

John Wayne Cancer Institute of Santa Monica, Calif., conducted a study in 663 women with breast cancer. Half of the women underwent breast biopsies, while in the other half, tumors were completely removed without performing a biopsy. The result of the study was that compared with the women who had their tumors surgically removed, there was a 50% higher chance of spread of cancer to sentinel node in those who had a needle biopsy.^[14]Hansen, N., 2004. Manipulation of the Primary Breast Tumor and the Incidence of Sentinel Node Metastases From Invasive Breast Cancer. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15197090/

In another systemic review of over 15 studies, the researchers found that malignant cell displacement on surgical specimens in breast cancer patients occurred in 22% of the patients.^[15]Liebens, F., Carly, B., Cusumano, P., Van Beveren, M., Beier, B., Fastrez, M. and Rozenberg, S., 2009. Breast cancer seeding associated with core needle biopsies: A systematic review. … Continue reading This means that even though biopsies are far riskier in spreading cancer than surgical removal of a tumor, the surgery still spreads cancer in almost 1/4 of patients. So biopsies are high-risk with zero benefit, and surgeries are high-risk (but less than biopsies) with some benefit. It should be noted that there are some rare extremely fast-growing tumors that surgery does offer mortality benefit in. But this is not the case for breast cancer.

The aim here is not to prove that biopsies are high-risk but rather to demonstrate that there is a risk (potentially significant risk) that cancer societies refuse to address. If you cannot trust them to be honest about risks associated with their own testing methods, how can you trust them with treatment? In the interest of transparency, breast cancer seems to be the highest risk for metastasis associated with testing and surgical procedures, sometimes up to 94%. This apparent higher risk versus other cancers may simply a lag in research in other forms of cancer.

Other risks#

In the Journal Urology, researchers looked at single and repeat biopsies and found that:

“Each biopsy was associated with a significant risk of complications compared to randomly selected controls.”^[16]Loeb, S., Carter, H., Berndt, S., Ricker, W. and Schaeffer, E., 2013. Is Repeat Prostate Biopsy Associated with a Greater Risk of Hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. … Continue reading

Want to learn more about alternative treatments for cancer? Reach out to the Herblia.com team to learn more.