Complementary alternative cancer therapies and cancer prevention are more necessary than ever. This was emphasized, for example, at two congresses in Heringsdorf and Munich. "While clinical oncology has made little progress over the years with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, alternative cancer therapy and cancer prevention have made enormous strides," explained Viennese cancer researcher Professor Heirich Wrba to doctors in Munich. Dr. György Irmey, Medical Director of the Society for Biological Cancer Defense, added: "Holistic concepts in cancer therapy not only have their justification, but they are necessary."

Prof. Wrba recalled a statement made by Nobel laureate Paul Ehrlich 90 years ago: "The development and growth of the tumor are a product of two factors, the body's defense and the virulence (malignancy) of the tumor cell." While clinical cancer therapies are almost exclusively directed against the tumor cell, the importance of the body's defense is still underestimated and neglected. Therefore, it is necessary

not only to damage the tumor cell with everything possible but also to promote and support defense mechanisms in the broadest sense. This can be achieved with various measures:

• Stimulation and activation of defense cells, e.g., through mistletoe, organ extracts
• Weakening the vitality of tumor cells and their virulence, propensity for spread, e.g., through vitamins, herbal remedies
• Improving their detectability by defense cells, e.g., through enzymes.
• Strengthening the readiness of the body's defense and its self-healing powers, e.g., through a balanced diet
• Stabilization and harmonization of the psyche

According to Prof. Wrba, surgery can succeed in reducing the number of tumor cells in the body to zero or near-zero. These patients would then be in the same situation as healthy individuals, who also constantly form tumor cells but whose immune system is strong enough to destroy isolated tumor cells. Therefore, support of the defense fight through immunomodulating therapies must begin immediately after surgery, preferably even before.

In the postoperative stage, chemotherapy also has its justification for some types of cancer, although one must always question before its application: "Who is more damaged by the cytostatics, the tumor, or the patient?"

Dr. Irmey described the usual distinction between "conventional" and "unconventional" therapy as schematic and arbitrary. Thus, broadly used forms of biological cancer therapy, proven in clinics and practices, can hardly be termed unconventional. This is much more applicable to various applications of chemotherapy, such as high-dose therapy, the successes of which are not yet well established and are still experimental and thus "clearly unconventional."

If a treatment is considered conventional and generally accepted, this does not mean that its effectiveness has been proven. Patients often feel better after treatments that scientific medicine considers ineffective," he quoted American cancer researcher Dr. A. Roberts. According to Dr. Irmey, the overspecialization in cancer medicine, especially for chronically ill cancer patients, is also problematic. He cited an example of a breast cancer patient who had dealt with 50 doctors in a university hospital over four years. Only two of them asked about the woman's well-being.

A self-critical oncologist admitted: "We don't usually spend too much time discussing the well-being of our patients. We consider the objective findings as the 'real' ones. For us, they represent the supposed truth, while the subjective well-being can deceive, but the findings cannot." This questionable distinction between "conventional" and "unconventional," which is often equated with "scientific" and "unscientific," can also have financial consequences for all involved. Just this year, a committee of the Federal Medical Association, the Drug Commission, demanded that all "unconventional therapies" be removed from the service catalog of health insurance companies. Anyone who wants to be treated with mistletoe, thymus, or other complementary means should bear the costs themselves. Health insurance companies should not be burdened with them.

This was contradicted in Heringsdorf by the President of the German Society for Oncology, Prof. Josef Beuth: "The blanket rejection of complementary means and methods is not justified. For many of these therapies, there are studies proving their effectiveness. When assessing these procedures, the experiences of doctors and patients must also be taken into account.