When an oncologist informs a patient that serious research to date has not produced any evidence to support the notion that nutrition and lifestyle can influence the cancer process, the impression is conveyed that serious research actually has been and is being done. To date I have not come across one single clinical trial in which a group of cancer patients have been coached and guided through a Moerman type nutritional therapy, let alone one combined with a lifestyle plan for exercise and sleep to further facilitate the body’s natural self healing processes.
My recommendation is to design and execute such a clinical trial for a duration of 6-12 months. Within 2 weeks the cancer patients can start to report on the changes they experience to their sense of well-being and general health. Within 6-8 weeks measurable changes in the cancer processes and cancer markers are available. Within 6-12 months definitive conclusions can be drawn on the measured slowing down and reversal of cancer processes, the shrinking and disappearance of tumors.
I fully appreciate why such a clinical trial has not been performed in the past. Imagine that the evidence really does point towards an optimal nutrition and lifestyle therapy that can be successfully used with say 60% of all cancer patients. It would mean that nutrition and lifestyle studies would have to be incorporated into an oncologist’s education. It would mean that many, if not all, existing cancer therapy protocols would have to be redesigned around a nutrition and lifestyle core. It would mean that the use of expensive medicines and hospital treatments would be cut by more than half. It would mean that research money would be chanelled away from expensive medicines and hospital treatments towards more natural and cheaper therapies.
You may be asking yourself why the narrative study is not being extended beyond the initial 142 stories, to 200, 500 or 1000 stories and more. The reality of today’s world is that no matter how impressive the findings of a large scale narrative study might be, the medical establishment will not accept these results as “scientific evidence.” It is comparable to a water dam with a wealth of narrative experience and knowhow building up on one side, and nothing flowing into the medical establishment on the other side. The flood gates are controlled by the medical establishment. To open up the flow we need to go for a serious clinical trial. Only “scientific evidence” will open up the flood gates of the dam.
When I consider the billions of dollars that are being poured annually into researching expensive medicines and hospital-based therapies, and the measurable “progress” that has been made over the past 40 years, it seems fair to ask the question ‘Why has not one single clinical trial ever been perfomed to investigate the possible influence of a Moerman type therapy on an ongoing cancer process?’
I sincerely hope that a national cancer institute, hospital or charity, or even the Moerman Academy in the Netherlands, or a consortium made up from these parties, will stand up and initiate a well-designed clinical trial on behalf of the cancer patients and families whose best interests they represent.
How to design such a clinical trial? Where to start? Here is my suggestion: keep it simple and start off with the three pillars that I designed and built for myself.