Cancer treatments in the US, and even around the world, are well published. What is published as effective is there for all to see regardless of what country you are in, since the journals for publication and the conferences where the latest data are revealed are truly multinational these days, and they are attended by presenters and listeners from all over the world. What is leading edge threapy isn't an unknown or limited to a small group of practitioners who have secretly kept it from others.

But in any environment there are those that cling to older ideas, (or refuse to keep up with new developments) those that have their own, out of the ordinary, take on things (efficacious or not), and when like my father, you want to hear something, I guarantee you you can find it and someone willing to give it to you. Is it the best possible solution for your situation based on what the majority of doctors and researchers are learning and publishing weekly? Not necessarily.

The one, and likely most important thing we can do for ourselves is become knowledgeable, and then pick the best TEAM offering the most clinically successful treatments (documented in peer reviewed comparative studies) to implement that treatment. Once that is done, as far as protocols are concerned, our job in deciding what to have done to us is over, and is now to hang on and to tough it out, watching for things that are changing in ourselves that may be necessary for our doctors to know. As soon as we start thinking that we know more than the majority of practitioners, we are gambling. As soon as you find someone who is offering something outside the accepted "successful in the majority" norm, are you believing that you have found a gem that no one else has, or are you wandering off into the netherlands of unproven treatments?