Take a photo of a barcode or cover
heidirgorecki 's review for:
Radical Remission: Surviving Cancer Against All Odds
by Kelly A. Turner
Definitely an eat-the-fish-leave-the-bones book. As a 2 time cancer survivor, currently in remission, a friend recommended this book to me. I found the concepts really interesting and worth a lot of thought.
However, the book has a very clear bias towards TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) and Eastern Mysticism/Energy healing. I will be the first to advocate for integrated and supplemental natural medicine but this went way beyond that.
The author states her background is in TCM, but as a book that’s supposed to be fact based interviews about how “radical remission” is possible, it really should have used more rounded, less pigeon-holed data. Every chapter outside of maybe the one on Diet attributes the persons healing to energy or TCM. Chapters that had nothing to do with energy or TCM in concept (like social connection for example) still wove it in there as a necessary part of their healing even tho it was really irrelevant to the concept discussed. Any reference to “God” isn’t actually God but energy or spiritual practice which is by far not the same thing. She even stated in the chapter on Spiritual Connection that everyone she interviewed agreed that it doesn’t matter how you embrace the spiritual, just that you do. Which, being in the cancer world for years, has been far from my own experience and that of talking to many others.
Again, a testament to a very biased pool of data.
All in all, great topics/points that are great to apply and consider in overall concept, but need to be viewed carefully and with a filter.
However, the book has a very clear bias towards TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) and Eastern Mysticism/Energy healing. I will be the first to advocate for integrated and supplemental natural medicine but this went way beyond that.
The author states her background is in TCM, but as a book that’s supposed to be fact based interviews about how “radical remission” is possible, it really should have used more rounded, less pigeon-holed data. Every chapter outside of maybe the one on Diet attributes the persons healing to energy or TCM. Chapters that had nothing to do with energy or TCM in concept (like social connection for example) still wove it in there as a necessary part of their healing even tho it was really irrelevant to the concept discussed. Any reference to “God” isn’t actually God but energy or spiritual practice which is by far not the same thing. She even stated in the chapter on Spiritual Connection that everyone she interviewed agreed that it doesn’t matter how you embrace the spiritual, just that you do. Which, being in the cancer world for years, has been far from my own experience and that of talking to many others.
Again, a testament to a very biased pool of data.
All in all, great topics/points that are great to apply and consider in overall concept, but need to be viewed carefully and with a filter.