Attempting to put breast cancer back in its box
by Joe Letts
My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer 12 years ago at age 43, and in our initial ignorance we allowed the guys in white coats first to perform a hideous biopsy with tools from a medieval torture chamber and then give her a course of chemotherapy that took away her womanhood, left her looking and feeling ten years older, and made her very, very ill indeed.
The outcome of all that in the short term was that the lump shrank some after the chemotherapy, not permanently, and she was offered a mastectomy which she declined.
We were fortunate during the course of chemotherapy to be given some literature detailing alternative means of dealing with cancer, including radical changes to diet, ingestion of toxins from lifestyle, bathroom products, etc., stress (like big changes in the role we expected my wife to play as wife and mother), exercise et al and we met Paul Layman a doctor in South West UK whose treatment of cancer was fundamentally different from that of the NHS. We read Phillip Day's 'Cancer, Why Are We still Dying To Know The Truth' and other books, and we abandoned the chemotherapy after four of six scheduleded treatments.
I'm leaving a lot out here but broadly speaking all went well then for five years until the lump reappeared.
While being treated by Paul we had been to a talk by Dr Francisco Contreras, a cancer surgeon and principal of the Oasis of Hope clinic in Playas de Tijuana, Mexico. We were impressed by him and what he said; so we managed to raise a not insubstantial amount to pay for a course of treatment, and off we went to America.
Oasis of Hope is the most amazing place. Read up all you can about it. Their protocols are designed to improve the quality of the patient's life, bolster up the immune system, and attack the cancers with (mostly) non toxic treatments that shrink tumours. Every Oasis treatment has been thoroughly proven by peer reviewed evidence, and the doctors there will explain every aspect of the treatments to you and show you their reasons for recommending the treatments.
Back to natural progesterone, which Doctor Contreras recommends very highly. Thea's cancer was apparently hormone driven(?) and at the end of the course it was recommended that she should use a hormone blocker. Simultaneously it was recommended that she should carry on using NatPro which has been of great benefit. This is an apparent anomaly, caused I'm sure by my incomplete understanding, but it's worrying. Can you shed light, please.
With best wishes