However, as much as I lack respect for conventional medical cancer therapies, I do think surgery can have a useful place in cancer treatment along with hygienic methods.  Some people just cannot confront the lump(s).  Or they are so terrified of having a cancer in their body that their emotions suppresses their own immune function.  Even though surgery prompts a cancer to spread more rapidly, without their lumps some cancer patients feel more positive.  If surgery is done in conjunction with rebuilding the immune system, the body will prevent new cancers from forming.

Removal of a large mass of cancer cells can also lighten the immune system’s task.  Not having to kill off and reabsorb all those cells one-by-one from a huge cancer mass, the body can better conquer smaller groups of cancer cells.  And the die-off of large cancers produces a lot of toxins, burdening the organs of elimination.  This is an argument for the potential benefit of a lumpectomy.  However, I do not support mastectomies, or the type of surgery that cause massive damage to the body in a foolish attempt to remove every last cancer cell, as though the cells themselves were the disease.

Sometimes cancer tumors are well-encapsulated, walled off and can be easily removed without prompting metastasis.  This type of tumor may not be completely reabsorbed by the body in any case; though the immune system may have killed it, an empty shell remains, like a peanut shell.  Sometimes the judgment calls about surgery can get dicey.  When surgery involves removing an organ.  I oppose the loss of useful body parts.

I have also known and helped people who believed they couldn’t recover without radiation and chemotherapy.  What people believe is, is.  The emotions generated when a personal reality is suppressed, ignored or invalidated will overwhelm an immune system.  I always tell those people who sincerely believe in it to go ahead with standard medical treatment (while I’m privately praying the doctors won’t cause too much damage).  However, when I am supporting a body with supplements and dietary reform, have put that body on a raw-food cleansing diet or even a raw food diet with nuts and grains that hardly detoxifies, and then the person has had chemotherapy and radiation, the medical doctors in attendance are inevitably amazed that the side effects are much milder than anticipated, or non-existent.  And fewer courses of chemotherapy are needed than the doctors expected.

For example, I worked with a little boy with leukemia.  His mother brought him to me while trying to resolve a conflict with her ex-husband about the boy’s treatment.  The father demanded the standard medical route; the mother was for natural therapy.  Eventually the father won in court, but I had the boy on my program for three months before the doctors got their hands on him.  Even during chemotherapy and radiation the mother kept the boy on my program.  Throughout the doctors’ treatment he had so few bad side effects that he was able to continue in school and play with the other children; he did not lose his hair (which would have made him feel like a freak).  He recovered.  I don’t mind that the medical doctors took credit, but to my thinking, he recovered despite their therapy.