We will call this the anti-cancer step, a set of treatments that, thanks to their individual clinical evidence and as a group, are a therapeutic possibility for the cancer patient.
Behind all of these there is a base that we live by and is behind everything we do at the functional oncology center, a mantra if we can call it that… Respect for the patient.
As we have already mentioned in other videos, the traditional oncological treatment has specific protocols which are directed to the general view of the pathology, that is, all patients with the same histological type for X type of cancer will receive the same treatment, specially when it comes to chemotherapy.
When it comes to chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, it is increasingly common to meet patients who are beginning to question the standard proposed treatments, mainly because most of these compromise their quality of life.
We as doctors are constantly presented with valid arguments by the patient as to why they do not wish to perform traditional treatments.
We understand that the most important opinion to consider when creating and recommending treatments should always be the end user, the patient, as he is the one that has to experience the baggage that comes with the use of these drugs or treatments.
So we have a huge list of valid arguments that patients present by questioning the potential, risk, outcome, and long-term harmful impact of oncological therapies.
Again, we are not denying their place, nor are we denying their use as standard therapies, however, we are exposing a medical reality that we are currently living, and being presented directly by the people who are living it.
Not listening to what the patient has to say would be the equivalent of not requesting a service survey in a hotel or a restaurant, in order to identify areas of opportunity for improvement purposes. Sadly, unlike most service-related industries, patients rarely have the freedom to express fears, concerns, or doubts about treatment let alone discuss other possibilities of non-conventional management with their physicians.
Almost as a rule, the patient will not have a voice in the decision-making process about his management, nor will his “opinion” be “listened to” for management purposes. They will be submitted to the therapy the established protocol and health system has determined is the right one for them.
It is here that we ask ourselves, what happens to those patients who question, challenge, or simply dismiss these treatments? The result seems alarming, since many patients report very terrible stories about the way in which the diagnosis and oncological treatments are presented, as well as their side effects, minimizing the patient’s say and emotions, where those who present signs of doubt or rejection towards traditional oncological treatment, it seems that the medical system relies on what might be termed “fear tactics”, such as threats, blackmail, denial of other medical services, consultations or follow-up, forcing the patient in some cases to deliberately make a decision that he is not fully sure or simply does not want to pursue. Resulting mainly in patients undergoing management with fear and great amount of emotional stress above the one already suffering from the diagnosis and prognosis.
This for us shows a great lack of respect to our oath as doctors and the opinion of the patient
At the same time, it is very important to create a forum, where the patient not only can express his feelings about the standard oncological treatments, but also any other therapeutic possibilities that he could find through his own research.
That is why, as researchers, we must be fully informed of all and any of the different management possibilities that patients could come to present to us, where the answer should never be limited to a sharp NO, or ridicule the presented option; If not to a full and deep explanation of why this treatment might or might not be a real option.
This will lead us to find a middle point, where the patient will feel comfortable with the medical management, as well as ensure that he is fully aware of the pros and cons of such, thanks to the vast information that was presented to him with priority in decision-making process, where our work as doctors will be to facilitate the greatest number of therapeutic opportunities from which each patient can benefit.
We must also work hard to present therapeutic management options in those cases where a final negative decision is reached towards a specific treatment.
It is for this reason, that our medical team is impartial as to what in the medical field is called conventional medicine vs what is called alternative medicine.
As long as the scientific evidence is present, for us it considered to be simply medicine. Which does not lead the patient to take “sides”, and opens a world of possibilities when it comes to medical treatments.
Talking about the alternative scope of medicine, what conditions and attributes are sought to so we are able to take into account a treatment and integrate it into a management our protocol?
In short, we can limit them to two broad areas. The first would be its clinical required evidence; this is typically done through experimentation with animals and cellular models, to culminate with the second major step. Once we get positive results inside the lab, which is a controlled environment. We will go to the field of diversification and individuality to observe and measure the impact of this treatment with the different population, meaning, with the universe of patients who were “baptized” with the same diagnosis, but are not living the disease in the same way.
This will therefore give us differences that are presented in terms of their use and the relationship with these diversities, reaching a consensus in their management and expected results. This will give us the guideline to validate X or Y therapy.
In this way we can conclude that, the set of treatments that integrate the anti-cancer step of our program, comply with these requirements.
As we explained this step consists of a range of therapeutic possibilities, where the main ones are the use of live cellular therapy and IPT, these will be supported through other therapies thanks to the synergy they provide to the base treatments.
Now it is important to mention that more is not necessarily better, each protocol is individualized based on the needs and situation of each patient.
This synergy is of great therapeutic utility, where it is sought to reinforce our main treatments and the harmony or balance between the combined therapies.
This brings us to one of the basic foundations and goals of this step; to not perpetuate or threaten the quality of life of our patients.
Lets dig a little bit deeper in this concept:
On one hand we have a disease like cancer that depending on each situation we see cases where the quality of life of the patient is affected, in different forms and levels depending on the case, now, let’s add the possible negative impact on the patient resulted from the use of certain standard therapies and the great shock that these could have on the complications typical of the disease, which lead to a heavy blow to the quality of life of the patient, this loss in the quality of life will lead the patient to question traditional treatments, to look for other possibilities probably less aggressive and in many cases, the abandonment all together of the medical management.
Going back to the synergy of the treatments, and the goal of avoiding collateral damage by supporting therapies that do not generate these severe side effects, the treatments used in the program meet these expectations, on one hand, it allows us to combine them properly to increase or improve their effectiveness and on the other hand it will not be a harmful factor that forces us to take medical action to try to control possible damage.
Moreover, in those cases where we are confronted with extremely complicated patients where the balance is almost absent, it will allow us to stabilize the patient better,
By not having to battle even more side effects, the result will be a better focus on to the patient’s complications and their management.
The goal of this step and the program is remission, regardless of the challenge we face; This under the absolute rule of maintaining the patient’s quality of life.