Barriers to Change

​

Whenever I meet someone facing cancer, I urge them to consider the futility of the conventional paradigm, and the benefits of the natural methods that saved my life.  In discussing people's situations with them, I recognize the familiar pattern of them having been sold a futility as a chance at hope.  I know that treatments have been prescribed because the manual says so, not because they actually cure.  It is obvious to me that despite the false hope I'm hearing, in reality, by staying on their present course, they will die.  So I have resolved to say exactly that; I will not hesitate to be an ambassador from the real world, politely but starkly predicting that on that course, "you will die."  I can afford to say that because the data agrees; that prediction will only be wrong 3% of the time.  And I'm a dead man walking, living proof of the success of an alternative approach.

Advocating for an alternative approach to conventional cancer treatment is a tough sell, because the momentum of conventionality, the apparent credibility of experts, the power of false hope, and the convenience of deferring difficult analysis and responsibility to others and just showing up for treatment, are so strong.  In this process of interacting with people, I have noticed 3 categories of circumstances that impact a person's flexibility in considering the natural treatment alternative.

1.  In cases where surgery is not an option, and there is no significant other treatment available, and it is considered hopelessly terminal, without much false hope offered, that makes it easier to consider alternatives, since there is desperation to try, and nothing to lose.  (That was the case for me.)

2.  For those cases where treatment is prescribed and pending, there is less openness to alternatives, because the treatment is touted as, and perceived as, having a chance of success.  It's natural for people to believe their doctor knows best, and hard for them to believe they've not been told the whole, stark truth, or about viable alternatives.

3.  The cases for which it is the hardest for people to be open to alternatives are those in which treatment is already underway.  Or they've completed treatment and are hoping it will stick, and are committed to trying the next treatment if it doesn't.  By having already invested themselves in the false hope, they feel compelled to see it through, to maximize its chances of success.  They're less open to alternatives because it's difficult to consider they may have made a grave, irreversible mistake.

Yet in all cases, the stark truth remains:  Other than surgery which MAY set back cancer enough to provide meaningful help, cancer treatments generally don't work, especially in cases where the cancer has spread.  This is because the conventional paradigm misunderstands the nature of cancer; it errs about the root cause and enablements, so its focus on trying to kill tumors only scratches the surface.  So they have to keep beating the dead horse because they have no alternative.  They're not in a hurry to tell you that in most cases, if you check the actual data comparing chemotherapy versus doing NOTHING, there isn't much ultimate difference in the outcome, and meanwhile, medical care has not significantly improved cancer cure rates over the past 100 years.

So if you care about living longer and better (whether regarding cancer, any of the common chronic diseases, or ANY issue in life), then escape the deadly trap of the momentum of conventionality, the apparent credibility of experts, the power of false hope, and the convenience of deferring difficult analysis and responsibility to others.  Seek God's help, take charge of your own course, explore alternatives, and never settle for less than BEST RESULTS.