There are hundreds of unofficial therapies that promise to cure cancer. Most likely almost all of these have some validity in the sense that the basic principles on which they hold are fairly sensible and sincere. However, their potential effectiveness could be very different and dependent on many variables, sometimes not perfectly controlled. Compared to the official, are therapies whose validity is much less "scientific," meaning they are treatments that often have not passed the experimental stages according to the criteria of scientific standards. Often, the preliminary research is done on a number of subjects statistically not significant, the results are not always controlled in time, as well as long-term side effects. In most cases these treatments, whose effectiveness, are not being documented in scientific journals, remain tied to the confidence of those who propose or direct testimonies of patients who use it.

This can lead to the conclusion that therapy does not undertake an equivalent recognized need to make a mistake.

Why abandon the certain for the uncertain?

But perhaps it would be fair to ask first what is certain?

When the "certain" is represented by a path that leads inexorably to death, then it may make sense to choose a different path? This is the real question that needs to be answered.

It is unfair to criticize those patients sentenced to death by a highly unfavorable prognosis who find the courage to leave the main road for something uncertain?

In most cases, to rely on a non-official therapy, means, blindly relying on the doctor who offers no guarantee on the validity of the treatment. One wonders whether the side effects may occur in the short or long term, one can always count on a 'high level of medical care in case something goes wrong, since he is no longer treated in a public facility, and more than anything else, one wonders whether the treatment will be effective.

But therapy is not recognized, it is said that it can not be effective. There have been several cases with advanced disease treated with alternative therapies that have received such significant benefits both in terms of increased survival and in terms of quality of life. However in all cases the improvements and unexplained healings have been considered by medical science not directly related to the effectiveness of therapy, but due to "miracles." In medicine the idea that alternative therapies are entirely ineffective in the treatment of cancer is unfortunately widespread. It is a sort of "belief," a basic assumption, an absolute dogma for which it seems impossible to accept the idea that an alternative cure can actually heal properly tumors.

But when there is nothing to lose and all to gain if the cure works, then a change of mind is something we need to have.