This section of the book is from the "How and When to Be Your Own Doctor" book, by Dr. Isabelle A. Moser with Steve Solomon, published in 1997.
There seem to be many other kinds of cancer, at least if you believe the medical doctors. They divide up cancers and their treatments by their location in the body and by the type of cancer cells present. I do not see it that way. To me, a cancer is a cancer is a cancer, and there is only one kind: it is an immune system collapse, consequence of the deadly triangle of weak spleen, thymus and liver, plus a toxic large intestine and weak pancreas. That organ profile is found in skin cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, cancer of what have you. How fast or how slowly the cells multiply or spread, where they are located, what the cancer cells look like in a microscope, these are irrelevant factors compared to the body's ability to conquer the disease. Or die from it.
If the body's immune system can stop the growth of the cancers and begin to turn them back before the cancer cells impinge catastrophically on some vital function, the person can usually survive. Even if the body cannot completely eliminate all the cancer cells, but regains enough immune function to keep the existing cancers in permanent check, a person can survive many years with an existing, stable cancer without undue pain or discomfort. Still having a non-growing tumor after a long fast indicates that a person is a lot better than they were before fasting.
I believe that virtually everyone has cancer cells in their body, just like viruses and bacteria. But most people do not develop cancer as a disease because their immune function is strong so these misbehaving cells are destroyed as fast as they appear. Mutated, freely-multiplying cells are caused by peroxidized fats, by free radicals in the body, by radiation (there has always been background radiation on Earth), by chance mutation. There are naturally occurring highly carcinogenic substances in ordinary foods that are unavoidable. In fact some of these naturally occurring substances are far more dangerous than the toxic residues of pesticides in our foods. The body is supposed to deal with all these things; they are all called insults. It is rarely the insult, but the failure of the body to eliminate cancerous cells promptly that causes the disease called cancer. So the treatment I recommend for cancer in general is the same as the one described for breast cancer cases. Restore the immune function.
However, as much as I lack respect for conventional medical cancer therapies, I do think surgery can have a useful place in cancer treatment along with hygienic methods. Some people just cannot confront the lump(s). Or they are so terrified of having a cancer in their body that their emotions suppresses their own immune function. Even though surgery prompts a cancer to spread more rapidly, without their lumps some cancer patients feel more positive. If surgery is done in conjunction with rebuilding the immune system, the body will prevent new cancers from forming.
Removal of a large mass of cancer cells can also lighten the immune system's task. Not having to kill off and reabsorb all those cells one-by-one from a huge cancer mass, the body can better conquer smaller groups of cancer cells. And the die-off of large cancers produces a lot of toxins, burdening the organs of elimination. This is an argument for the potential benefit of a lumpectomy. However, I do not support mastectomies, or the type of surgery that cause massive damage to the body in a foolish attempt to remove every last cancer cell, as though the cells themselves were the disease.
Sometimes cancer tumors are well-encapsulated, walled off and can be easily removed without prompting metastasis. This type of tumor may not be completely reabsorbed by the body in any case; though the immune system may have killed it, an empty shell remains, like a peanut shell. Sometimes the judgment calls about surgery can get dicey. When surgery involves removing an organ. I oppose the loss of useful body parts.
I have also known and helped people who believed they couldn't recover without radiation and chemotherapy. What people believe is, is. The emotions generated when a personal reality is suppressed, ignored or invalidated will overwhelm an immune system. I always tell those people who sincerely believe in it to go ahead with standard medical treatment (while I'm privately praying the doctors won't cause too much damage). However, when I am supporting a body with supplements and dietary reform, have put that body on a raw-food cleansing diet or even a raw food diet with nuts and grains that hardly detoxifies, and then the person has had chemotherapy and radiation, the medical doctors in attendance are inevitably amazed that the side effects are much milder than anticipated, or non-existent. And fewer courses of chemotherapy are needed than the doctors expected.
For example, I worked with a little boy with leukemia. His mother brought him to me while trying to resolve a conflict with her ex-husband about the boy's treatment. The father demanded the standard medical route; the mother was for natural therapy. Eventually the father won in court, but I had the boy on my program for three months before the doctors got their hands on him. Even during chemotherapy and radiation the mother kept the boy on my program. Throughout the doctors' treatment he had so few bad side effects that he was able to continue in school and play with the other children; he did not lose his hair (which would have made him feel like a freak). He recovered. I don't mind that the medical doctors took credit, but to my thinking, he recovered despite their therapy.