Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy

Non-Toxic Biological Approaches to the Theories, Treatments and Prevention of Cancer

The Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy (FACT) founded in 1971, is a federally approved 501(c)(3) organization. All proceeds from donations, sale of the DVD, and the books Triumph Over Cancer, Rethinking Cancer, and Detoxification are tax deductible. Your contributions help to fund FACT's educational efforts.

More About FACT

Visit the new
FACT Product Guide

Alternative Therapy vs. Alternative Concept
By Ruth Sackman

There has been such an enormous flood of information about alternative cancer therapies that we at FACT feel compelled to clarify our policy because it differs with many of the concepts that have been disseminated in books, periodicals, over the radio and television. You know what happens when there is a flood? It brings with it a lot of mud that has to be cleaned up. I am going to attempt to do some of that cleaning.

Thirty years ago when FACT was organized, we supported a clear-cut alternative concept to conventional therapy. This was an alternative system, not just alternative medicine used in the same conventional fashion that had been a failure. It was a system designed to restore the integrity of the body. It was a system that was designed to re­store the body’s ability to discontinue the produc­tion of malignant cells. It was a system designed to activate the immune system so as to assist the body in eliminating abnormal cells as foreign substances. This is what we meant by alternative cancer therapies and the Foundation for Alterna­tive Cancer Therapies (FACT) was established The name was ultimately changed to Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy, still retaining the acronym FACT, because we wanted to differ­entiate between the new (popular) usage for the term “altemative' and our original policy.

This decision to form an organization and the alternative concept we supported was made after considerable investigation of research and clinic work worldwide by a group comprised of two cancer patients who had opted for a different concept of treatment and others who had investi­gated alternatives for a close family member.

Our original concept was to preserve the integrity of the host (patient) and repair the physi­ological breakdown responsible for producing abnormal cells. This differed from conventional therapy which concentrated on reducing cancer cells by radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, a system that had failed to produce a cure for cancer. The conventional system was based on a concept that one abnormal cell would divide and continue dividing without control if there was just one cell left undetected. Conventional thinking did not con­sider that there might be a link between the cancer and the physiology of the host. In contrast, the alternative concept which we evaluated and sup­ported emphasized the connection between the host and  control of cancer cell production. This concept was labeled wholistic by some authorities. This concept is still valid.

As the alternatives moved mainstream, all sorts of people, most of them with limited knowl­edge albeit well-meaning, joined the movement. This has created confusion for the desperate cancer patient.  There has been a deluge of people and practitioners who are providing services, selling merchandise, writing books and articles, etc., prooclaiming knowledge and expertise, regarding alternative therapies. Unfortunately, the vast major­ity of them think of cancer in the same framework as the conventional system. If the conventional system of focusing on the cells is a failure, there is no reason to assume that different substances with the same misplaced focus are going to be more successful.

It is gratifying that alternatives to conven­tional therapies have become more mainstrean, but it has brought with it a proliferation of claimed miraculous alternatives. The only requirement, it seems, for the “alternative” label is the lack of acceptance by the established medical community That does not automatically mean that these “alter­natives” are biologically sound which is FACT’s yardstick. Some of them can be as toxic as conven­tional therapies.

Without being too critical of the many “alternative” therapies which are toxic or ineffec­tive, FACT would like to reemphasize its original position and make that position clear as a real alternative. A real alternative is a system that does not violate the integrity of the body but considers the body chemistry in need of repair. Therefore, the direction of treatment is to restore the body’s ability to cease producing abnormal cells. To con­centrate on tumor reduction by killing cancer cells is to treat, a symptom and neglect the cause.

Years of experience with cancer patients and practitioners using real alternative concepts have shown that patients, who overcome cancer by using a biologically sound system, fulfil their normal life expectancy similar to the lives of indi­viduals who have never had a cancer diagnosis. Is not this the change we want instead of a so-called “altemative’ that is essentially a new presentation of an old concept?

It might help one’s understanding if I re­late a case history that I was familiar with from the beginning of her recovery. Doris Sokosh’s husband, John, called one day to tell me of his wife’s breast cancer problem.  She was bedridden, on pain-kill­ing drugs and scheduled for a seventh surgical procedure. I referred him to a metabolic clinic but the cost was beyond their means and Doris was too weak to be transported or even to be taken to a doctor’s office. There was no choice but to provide help directly from FACT.

I spoke to John Sokosh and suggested he start by developing an understanding of the alter­native system of healing by reading some of the books on the FACT Book List which I felt were an important part of knowing the direction of a sound alternative program. I also urged him to have his wife, actively participate in decisions about her re­covery. Self motivation eradicates a patient’s feel­ing of helplessness which is detrimental to one’s well-being. Ultimately, Doris called. Her voice was weak and it was obvious that she had endured an ordeal but she seemed determined to accept a new direction of healing. She also had faith that her religious beliefs would sustain her. This created a climate which eliminated tension or stress.

Doris was given a balanced dietary program(the key word is blanced) aimed at pro­viding her body with all the essential elements needed for her body to build healthy cells. This is a complex system which requires periodic adjust­ments. There is no substitute for live (raw) food which contains vitamins, minerals and enzymes in the natural form that the body assimilates most efficiently.

Manufactured supplements are not the most suitable source for the synergisticalßly sound elements needed for cell production. There are elements in food which have not as yet been detected,therefore, they cannot be created as sup­plements. Some carefully considered supplements were added to the program along with glandulars and enzymes. Periodically, detoxification was indicated which Doris did diligently. Later it was determined she had a sluggish thyroid so a natural thyroid substance (Armour's) was added to nor­malize thyroid function. Her recovery was slow but steady.

Today, 28 years later Doris is well and has become a distributor for Vitratox because she had used some of their products successfully. Her mo­tive primarily was to encourage people to use qual­ity supplements and to respect the body’s healing ability when it is given the elements that nature intended for the human species.

I think it would help one’s understanding of the differences between alternative medicines and alternative concepts for treating cancer if I give an example of a system labeled “alternative” which uses the identical concept as traditional medicine. Hydrazine sulfate, which was researched by Dr. Joseph Gold, is a product used in making rocket fuel. Much of conventional chemotherapy func­tions on the principle of depriving cancer  cells of an essential element for survival, thereby, starving them so they die. Hydrazine sulfate uses the same physiology: It deprives the cell of glucose.  The same thing that makes chemotherapy unacceptable makes hydrazine sulfate unacceptable because, unfortunately, the chemical starves healthy cells of the same needed element and they too die. The end result is the same as any conventional therapy—it is  detrimental to the patient. Hydrazine sulfate has no healing properties.

Let me close by emphasizing that tumor reduc­tion has not been the answer to cancer. The true goal is  patient survival.

Watch Online

Watch on Amazon Video Watch on iTunes

Watch on DVD

Get the Book

Rethinking Cancer, by Ruth Sackman, is an excellent companion book to the film. Learn More

Newsletter signup

Bookmark and Share