Re: small tumor sugery not necessary

If a woman has a small tumor of the breast in stage 0, or stage 1, why does it become necessary to remove that tumor by surgery just because it is possible?? It is also possible to do other things. Why isn't it MORE necessary to do the other things rather than doing the surgery? You don't really answer this. You say that "my advice will always be resect when possible." You say to resect or to have surgery is better, but you don't say why you believe it is better. I think this is why you end up complaining that you have been unfairly put in the bin with the others who reguarly "cut, burn and poison."

Why would any man or woman who had this small tumor want to voluntarily have a hole punched in their breast by lumpectomy when there are other ways? The surgeon has to cut out the small tumor and also leave a hole larger than the tumor itself in an attempt to get out as much of the cancer by surgery as possible. However, why inflict this lumpectomy on yourself when the body will work to cause the small, cancerous tumor to disappear if you use a standard protocol that uses natural methods such as organic foods and juices (and other things).

Since you are familiar with the Oasis of Hope Hospital, here is an example from them.
I know a woman who had the early stage (stage 0 or stage 1), and had the tumor disappear after a 1 week stay at the Oasis Hospital. If the woman had been older the treatment would have taken longer. There wasn't any more cancer in her breast.

Why maim yourself when you don't have to maim yourself? I feel that because you opted to have surgery first and then used natural methods, it's upsetting to you (or anyone) to think that perhaps you could have changed the course of your colon cancer even without the surgery you had.