Conventional medicine does not have a monopoly on truth.  The medical paradigm is smaller than the real world.  And some of the boundaries that define and limit the medical paradigm are arbitrary.  So if a doctor accepts those boundaries (most do), if they're not open to anything beyond them (most aren't), then by definition they are not objective or soundly scientific, nor can they be legitimately certain they are providing what the patient really needs most.

The most significant factors that enable and promote cancer, or on the other hand are anti-cancer, are diet and lifestyle.  Our modern cultural evolution has incrementally, blindly normalized a horribly unhealthy, highly processed diet paradigm, and marginalized healthy, natural substance.  Conventional medicine fails to adequately appreciate these all-important factors.  The result is a disproportionate reliance on medical treatments that miss the mark, and produce a correspondingly dismal track record, particularly in oncology (cancer specialty).

Doctors, particularly oncologists, who practice and promote conventional medical cancer treatment, and ignore or oppose natural therapies, are misguided.  I often ponder whether this misguidedness is innocent, culpable, or somewhere in between.  On the one hand, doctors are generally well-meaning, but are unfortunately trained incorrectly in medical school about the subjects of nutrition in general, and cancer in particular.  So it could be said that their misguidedness is innocent.  But on the other hand, conventional cancer treatment has an unarguably ABYSMAL track record, and natural remedies are eminently more logical and effective.  Furthermore, the conventional medical cancer paradigm is pervaded with conspicuous irrationality, arrogance, rigidity, corruption, and failure, things which are the OPPOSITE of what doctors, as intellectuals, scientists, and altruists, should be.  Meanwhile, it is easy to comprehend and discover the proven alternatives existing outside the conventional medical paradigm, and the AVALANCHE of science and history supporting this distinction.  So it could be said that the misguidedness of conventional oncology is inexcusably derelict, even reprehensible.

Based on my observation, analysis, and firsthand experience over decades, I am compelled to conclude that although some proportion of the misguidedness is innocent, the greater proportion of it is culpable.  Despite most doctors being intelligent, caring people, they are human beings, subject to all the same temptations and flaws as anyone else, including strong biases, agendas, and especially, considering the high status of this position, ARROGANCE.  The fact remains that the obscene failure and misery rate of conventional oncology screams out, “there MUST be a better way.”  That realization is simply TOO EASY to reach, to excuse failing to reach it.  All it takes is that EASY first step of ORDINARY curiosity to re-think the status quo, and realize the necessity of looking beyond the failed paradigm.  Then, by applying reasonable diligence, the subsequent steps of discovering viable alternatives will naturally eventually follow.  The failure to take that first objective step of realization proves inexcusable intellectual laziness, incompetence, arrogance, and/or corruption.  And in fact, these factors are conspicuous.  So such practitioners are inescapably culpable, and at best, their good intentions are relegated to mere abstraction, being outweighed by being recklessly too comfortable with deadly dereliction.  I can’t be sympathetic considering the holocaust of preventable suffering and death of everyday people who have no way to know their trust in their doctor’s credibility is woefully misplaced.  Expertise in a failed experiment is not respectable expertise.  Riding the momentum of the status quo just because that momentum exists is not justifiable.  Yes, governments on every level are fervent accomplices in this malfeasance (actually primary drivers of it), but that is no excuse for any individual doctor whose FIRST job is to dispassionately DO NO HARM.

So, with few exceptions, I consider conventional medical cancer treatment to be malpractice, and reprehensible.  (It’s not legally actionable because it’s within the popular standard, but that’s only because, again, that standard is misguided.)  Eventually, the common cycle of history will repeat, when future generations will gradually escape this irrational paradigm, and will look back on this modern era’s deadly alchemy and barbarism with dismay and disdain.  But you don't have to wait until then, you can escape that deadly ignorance TODAY.