Dear reader, I feel it is important to understand the driving forces behind the Clinic.
The Radiowave Therapy Clinic is a non-profit organisation committed to funding and partaking in research associated with radiowave therapy.
Both the Clinic founders have had cancer. Whilst mine is more terminal, both of us have benefited from radiowave therapy. Dr John Holt invented radiowave therapy over 30 years ago, so when he closed his practice and retired at the age of 80, there were many of us who were desperate for ongoing radiowave treatment.
Firstly, I would like to dispel two important misconceptions about radiowave therapy. It has been referred to as hyperthermia – it is not – and also as microwave therapy – it is not.
For me the appeal of radiowave therapy is that it is non invasive, has little or no toxicity, is almost completely side effect free and can be repeated.
As there are no other clinics anywhere in the world providing the treatments of Dr Holt, it was obvious that upon Dr Holt’s retirement, a clinic would need to be established from the ground up. This would at least provide continuity for existing patients and provide an option for others in the future.
The commitment was made: to build a Clinic to ensure that persons seeking radiowave therapy would not be denied the opportunity of treatment provided it was on the basis of informed choice and that their state of health permitted.
At this time it was also obvious that without greater research into radiowave therapy, there was little chance of the treatment becoming ‘mainstream’. I have more to say on this further down, given the Clinic focus was only on cancer treatment.
It took two years to establish the Clinic. It is a testament to the efforts and integrity of all those involved, that the Clinic has extremely high standards of patient care, facilities, technologies, procedures and processes, all of which are governed by treatment protocols which have been tried and tested for many years.
The Clinic has its place in providing an option for those with cancer, but it is likely to remain a facility unique to Perth until such time as the Clinic Board can draw upon more certain outcomes.
This brings me back to the need for research. Knowing that Dr Holt provided two forms of radiowave therapy over 30 years, you may have been surprised to read that there has been no long-term research into his treatments, let alone results of such research published in peer reviewed journals.
Now to be clear, Dr Holt has an extensive bibliography and has written comprehensively about his treatments, with case studies and explanations of his concepts, his findings and his results.
Nevertheless, there is a huge difference between the regulated approach to medical research that starts in the laboratory and continues through with published findings from clinical trials, and the approach of a previous era where greater ‘in situ’ experimentation occurred.
I am certain Dr Holt did not have the resources to conduct long term research and at the same time I think he actually just wanted to get on with treating as many people as he could. To a degree, it is understandable that there is scepticism in factions of the medical community about his treatments.
Without the research, Dr Holt’s years of experience and successes count for a lot less than perhaps they should – and while a good deal of patient evidence has been presented in the media and in Government submissions – this has simply been sidelined as anecdotal information.
The compelling need for independent research has at least led to the establishment of the Radiowave Therapy Research Institute which sponsors a number of radiowave therapy research projects. It is expected this will lead to a continuum of published material as research outcomes eventuate into the foreseeable future.
Having said this, I must draw your attention to the fact that it is likely to be some years before the Institute research projects yield the results that many past patients attest to – and which prospective patients seek. This is a treatment without any guarantees.
I live with a terminal cancer diagnosis and so I know how quickly one looks for an alternative like radiowave therapy, which does not have the toxic and debilitating side effects of some other treatments. However, other than its safe history, you must remember that there are no immediate statistics to call upon in terms of cancer responses, and so there can be no prediction of how radiowave therapy might perform in any given circumstance.
I have had several radiowave treatment sessions between 2005 and 2007 and have not yet had to venture to other less attractive options. For my type of cancer, stabilising the disease without invasiveness and side effects is a great outcome.
And so the Clinic treatment may be an option for some. If you have cancer, I know the difficulties and anxieties of the experience. I wish you well. I think belief structure is important, so keep asking questions, be informed and discuss your intentions with your medical advisor before commencing with any treatment.
In closing, it is important to seek information, understand your options and make your own decision about which treatment you should undertake. I chose radiowave therapy because I could still undertake more conventional treatments if my cancer did not respond. This website is presented to help you understand if radiowave therapy is a treatment option for you.
I wish you well and hope you find this site informative.
Director and patient