It looks like an interesting series, but there's just one aspect of the growing list of natural cancer cures that worries me a little. If even only a small fraction of all our touted 'sure-fire' cures are effective against cancer, why are we constantly searching for new natural cancer cures? Are the ones we already have perhaps not quite as effective as we are led to believe?
What's the point of being given a bewildering choice of over 200 cures if only a handful of those are really effective - ie perform better than standard care? I might put that question to Ty or Webster some time. Meantime, I still want to know what really works, and what doesn't. Otherwise, my scattergun approach if I got the diagnosis might be the only sensible way to go.