I think you don't hear it on TV because TV is generally just lame in every way.
Yes, I do. The brutality of chemo is extremely common knowledge.
Well, I heard people talk about that stuff when I hung out with crowds who believed in that stuff. Unfortunately, all the people who
actually went that route with their cancer
all died.
No, I'm not.
What alternatives? Faith healing and whole foods?
For all cancers?
How?
TV being lame: yes.
As far as the brutality of chemo being common knowledge, well sure. But I've never really known that to actually change anyone's mind . . . It always seems to be like, "yeah, it's brutal, but what can you do?" (Granted I've always lived in the deep South where the status quo ways of thinking are dominant.)
And that's horrible that those people you knew died. But how many, actually? 2, 3, 4? I'm curious. And what methods did they try and how far along was it? And that would obviously have to be contrasted with how many I or others have known that died from the prevailing methods, which is something I'd have to think about to jog my memory.
Lastly, as far as more faith based things - like hands on healing, I'd say that, well, it's probably a matter of faith. In other words, yeah, I actually have faith in faith. So, in my own case, I'd be leary of someone telling me they were going to go with hands on healing methods to cure their cancer. I'd worry for them, absolutely . . . but what would probably make or break my prediction would be how convinced they were themselves that the hands on healing would work. If they seemed to really believe it'd work, I'd probably think to myself that it very well might for them. But if I thought they certainly lacked faith, I'd first want to recommend they radically change their diet to foods that chase cancer away - yes, whole foods and foods rich in vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, and enzymes, and pro-biotics, and away from ones that almost certainly feed it (empty carbs and sugars). If they didn't seem interested or commited enough to such a thing, I'd inwardly hope they'd try mainstream methods . . . but probably more with the thought that it'd just as likely work from placebo - faith, that is - than from anything "real."
As far as your last graph, that's great. And hopefully it fully reflects the situation as it is . . . because no one can deny that - just like lowering standards to make a pre-hypertention category to prescribe yet more drugs to - the cancer industry will change standards in whatever way they can get away with to make their statistics look better. There is no doubt that the industry isn't fairing nearly as well as it's made out to be. How much that applies here, I have no idea . . . But once again, I don't doubt that there are certain cancers where mainstream methods have improved . . . but with all such things, the risks and real details will have a way of staying hidden.
Lastly, I can't tell if you're being dismissive about the whole/traditional foods thing. I mean, if we look at numerous populations that never had cancer, surely we can say that, if we do what they did, that we'd almost certainly, drastically improve our lot. Mainstream science says that foods can lead to cancer, but won't cure it. I find this ridiculous and don't need to wait on the mainstream for-profit industry that would suffer endlessly with such a revelation to admit this . . . this is what's behind the treatment of Gerson.
EDIT: this is written quick and sloppily, right before crashing out . . . so I might modify it later.
EDIT 2: what I meant to say about the graph and your response was that it was great but that it was only one type of cancer.