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.