Whenever someone is diagnosed with cancer or some other life-threatening disease, the logic of decision-making begins to change. Doctors will deliver toxic chemicals to fight off the disease because the alternative outcome -- death -- seems more severe than the risky side effects of chemotherapy. Even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve new drugs with unsavory side effects if the indication is for AIDS or cancer. The risks we are willing to take become larger when someone’s life is threatened. But what if we flipped that around; what if we took smaller risks in a life-or-death situation?

Finding a non-toxic treatment for cancer has not been a top-priority for drug developers. A considerable amount of toxicity is actually expected with most cancer drugs, and without toxic side effects, the drug’s ability to kill life threatening cell types may even be doubted. Perhaps this is why we haven’t seen more of a buzz about non-toxic cancer treatments or alternatives to chemotherapy.

According to a UK-based study at the University of Leeds, researcher Charlotte Willans has evidence that silver packs a punch capable of knocking out cancer cells, without the toxic side effects of other cancer treatments.

The more familiar platinum-based cancer treatment known as Cisplatin has been effective at knocking out cancer cells while causing kidney damage and increasing the risk for infection. Willans research, however, shows that some types of silver molecules are equally efficient as the Cisplatin formulation without disasterous by-products. The benefit of silver over platinum is based on toxicology. The difficulty with most cancer drugs is the inability to target specific cancer cells; rather, the treatment affects both healthy and unhealthy cells in the body. By using a silver-based cancer treatment, the effects on healthy cells are believed to be much less toxic than the platinum-based counterpart, Cisplatin.

There have been other metal-based medical treatments in the news recently. Many of which involve Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other brain diseases. Scientists are exploring ways to moderate iron, zinc, and copper levels in the brain because when these metals are out-of-balance, disease sets in. Many metals are naturally occurring in the body and are needed for normal functioning. Silver does not occur in the human body naturally, but it has been used to heal wounds and purify water.

I may not be an expert oncologist, but common sense tells me that if there is a safer treatment available for cancer patients, and the treatment is equally (or even similarly) effective in its ability to kill cancer cells, then the less-toxic drug choice should be favored. My bias towards homeopathic medicine probably shapes my opinion on this matter, but I believe in a whole-body approach to healing. If a person is suffering from cancer or some other targeted cell-type disease, killing off unhealthy cells while causing “acceptable” damage elsewhere in the body seems counter-productive.

If we have an alternative form of cancer treatment that promises not to harm the rest of the body while killing off targeted cells, then we have a win-win situation. In my non-expert opinion, I think the body would heal faster and more completely using a non-toxic cancer treatment. What would be your preference? When it comes to abolishing cancer cells in your body, would you prefer the grenade or the sniper rifle?