I think we understand what you're you're seeking. Many of us have gone far into the holistic approach, and have consulted holistic doctors that have given great help. I for some time consulted with Dr. Thomas Cowan of San Fransisco, a well-known holistic M.D. But even his approach ends up being based on faith.
So it is not a matter of a "diet" or a specific pill or activity that is used but rather every aspect of your body's function is examined and propped up.
There is tremendous success in holistic treatments of cancer including prostate cancer. There does appear to be quite a bit of polarization however between the two worlds. That is the conventional practitioners seem fairly oblivious to anything holistic or they'll treat it as a "sure you can play around with that stuff if it makes you feel better" type of thing.
There is a vast world of doctors (most started as MDs or oncologists) who treat people successfully (not less successfully than conventional) and with much less side-effects (only positive side effects - more alert, more function, etc) than conventional medicine
That is all well and good. But the problem is, it assumes that someone has a full understanding of "every aspect of your body's function." If people existed with this knowledge, we could throw all our research in the garbage can, and say hallelujah, we've reached the Promised Land. But in fact, human biology is still in its infancy. Researchers are just starting to get into the genetic and cellular mechanisms for many of our bodily functions. Bit by bit, they make proven advances, and increase the knowledge base so others can continue the process. Most holistic doctors not only are not aware of the latest research, they smugly think they understand it all already.
The problem I've found with Dr. Cowan and others is reliance on pseudo-science to fill in the gaps of scientific knowledge. In Dr. Cowan's case it is Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, an esoteric philosophy growing out of European transcendentalism with links to Theosophy. This is faith-based medicine tied to dogma rather than scientific inquiry, and its practice become glorified anecdotal medicine with a halo. I'm not against anecdotal medicine, per se, and some of our best oncologists have no choice but to try things that in their experience produces results. But they're not afraid to subject their practice to scientific testing. Dr. Cowan instead turns to his philosophy book.
And yet I appreciate what folks like Dr. Cowan have done. They are challenging a myopic approach to medicine and bringing in anecdotally successful remedies. But when it comes to treating cancer, they are out of their league. For example, Dr. Cowan advocates mistletoe extract because Rudolf Steiner felt that its biology mimicked cancer. Pardon me for saying hogwash to sympathetic magic.
So I'd be happy to let someone treat the "whole person" once I know someone that is competent to do so. But to make that claim based on the current state of medical knowledge is absurd. Until then, when I'm facing a life-threatening condition such as yours, lead me to the specialist whose practice is based on unbiased scientific studies.
Age 60 Gleason 9
1/10 PSA 14.7
5/10 Bx: Gleason 3+4
8/4/2010 RRP: Gleason 4+5; Positive Margins, PNI
Incontinence: N/A; ED: 70%
Until 4/11, PSA <.01; 4/11: .01; 6/11: .03
ADT3 started 7/20; WPRT 39 sessions ended 10/14:
Pelvic lymph nodes: 45 Gy; Fossa 66 Gy; Prostate bed: 71.5 Gy.
Post Edited (Riviere) : 12/7/2011 9:42:44 AM (GMT-7)