This film does a great job of showing how the American Cancer specialists are corrupted by money and propaganda. The FDA has not approved various cancer-killing methods and medicines that are used successfully around the world! The media is complicit because a major portion of the advertising revenue comes from Big Pharma. They simply will not cover these stories. Cancer is very curable and this film explains what a few of those methods are for killing cancer.
3 Reviews
An Interesting Premise But Not Presented Properly
tawnmaru-5667222 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There are serious problems with this film. It tries to make the case that we are treating cancers wrong and there are natural ways to cure cancer. Okay. Let's see the proof. There is no evidence presented, such as scans, doctor notes, biopsy reports, that any of the patients interviewed even had cancer, let alone they were cancer free after foregoing conventional treatment and opting for natural methods.
It's just various people talking about their cancer. They could all be actors or mistaken about what they actually had. We, the audience, has no way of knowing. We're just supposed to trust the filmmaker.
Adding to this serious oversight is referring to the patients as "cured" when they are only in remission. A huge difference. There was only one patient in the film who was cancer free for more than five years, the standard time frame at which a cancer patient can be considered cured. So only one person in the film can legitimately claim a cure with natural treatments. Not a great endorsement.
We also have no way of knowing which patients had conventional treatments and what those were because no medical records were shown and scant medical histories were given. If a patient also has conventional treatment that throws off the results. Their remission could be solely due to traditional treatment and not to the natural methods at all.
I looked up the cancer death rates for Germany, where one of the supposed "cure" treatments is offered, and theirs is just as high as any other country. If this hyperthermia is so miraculous, why are Germans dying of cancer at the same rate everyone else is?
It's just various people talking about their cancer. They could all be actors or mistaken about what they actually had. We, the audience, has no way of knowing. We're just supposed to trust the filmmaker.
Adding to this serious oversight is referring to the patients as "cured" when they are only in remission. A huge difference. There was only one patient in the film who was cancer free for more than five years, the standard time frame at which a cancer patient can be considered cured. So only one person in the film can legitimately claim a cure with natural treatments. Not a great endorsement.
We also have no way of knowing which patients had conventional treatments and what those were because no medical records were shown and scant medical histories were given. If a patient also has conventional treatment that throws off the results. Their remission could be solely due to traditional treatment and not to the natural methods at all.
I looked up the cancer death rates for Germany, where one of the supposed "cure" treatments is offered, and theirs is just as high as any other country. If this hyperthermia is so miraculous, why are Germans dying of cancer at the same rate everyone else is?
The conclusion invalidates key argument
ys49878 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's sad that some viewers might follow the advice in the movie and die unnecessarily or sooner.
Spoiler alert.
The conclusion of the movie asks us to imagine what if the average cost to treat a cancer patient is $35K (with alternative natural treatments) instead of $500K (with mainstream treatments). That invalidates the key reason for lack of clinical trials to prove the effectiveness of the alternative treatments. i.e. Trials are expensive and one couldn't make enough money from cheap remedies (like vitamin C) to justify the costs.
If the insurance companies can save $500K - $35K = $465K on each cancer patient, why wouldn't they kill to fund the trials? We have more than 1.6 million new cancer cases each year just in the US alone. That's $465K x 1.6 million = $744 billion of saving in a single year. And the savings will keep on accumulating year after year. Wouldn't that be enough money to fund all the trials and then some?
Spoiler alert.
The conclusion of the movie asks us to imagine what if the average cost to treat a cancer patient is $35K (with alternative natural treatments) instead of $500K (with mainstream treatments). That invalidates the key reason for lack of clinical trials to prove the effectiveness of the alternative treatments. i.e. Trials are expensive and one couldn't make enough money from cheap remedies (like vitamin C) to justify the costs.
If the insurance companies can save $500K - $35K = $465K on each cancer patient, why wouldn't they kill to fund the trials? We have more than 1.6 million new cancer cases each year just in the US alone. That's $465K x 1.6 million = $744 billion of saving in a single year. And the savings will keep on accumulating year after year. Wouldn't that be enough money to fund all the trials and then some?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
