I advocate for an integrative oncology approach that leverages the best of conventional and holistic oncology care. While a conventional oncologist is a disease expert, a holistic provider manages the patient’s health, immune function, and resilience. Furthermore, a holistic provider is invaluable during remission and for those who wish to take a proactive stance in preventing cancer.

It depends on the disease burden and the symptoms present at the time of diagnosis. Immunotherapies are promising conventional interventions that may be applicable. In my case, I achieved remission in eight months following an integrative protocol that included immunotherapy and holistic therapies, but without chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Whatever each individual chooses with the advice of a knowledgeable and compassionate oncologist, there is always room for adjunctive care with holistic therapies.

This is patently false. There are many evidence-based integrative oncology therapies that maximize the benefit of conventional oncology treatment while minimizing their side effects. A well-researched survey of many such therapies can be found in the book Outside the Box Cancer Therapies. To learn more about individualizing such modalities for you, find an integrative oncologist specialist via The Nicholas Gonzalez Foundation, the Metabolic Terrain Institute of Health, and/or the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

Cancer is a genetic disease that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is instigated by environmental factors. This is the science of epigenetics. My work focuses on environmental medicine and psycho-oncology, addressing poisons in our environment (carcinogens) and the contributing factors of stress and trauma.

It’s not 100% clear that either is a textbook carcinogen, but more often than not, the behaviors we adopt to cope with stress and trauma—alcohol and tobacco products, for example—are unequivocal carcinogens. It’s fair to say that chronic stress and severe trauma, if unmitigated, are potent contributing factors to the development of cancer, and the research in my books provides the evidence base for that claim.

Four corroborating lines of evidence suggest that non-native electromagnetic fields are indeed a potent human carcinogen. What we don’t know is the dose that makes the poison, or what intensity of exposure, over what length of time, is sufficient to cause oxidative stress and damage DNA. That we are not seriously investigating this question as sources of EMFs proliferate is an unmitigated human (and environmental) health crisis.