Cancer

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon,

I have done exactly as described under English - lectures - cancer on my

homepage http://home.online.no/~arethore/

 

Are

 

Are Simeon Thoresen

arethore

http://home.online.no/~arethore/

 

-

Alon Marcus

Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:07 PM

Re: cancer

 

 

melanoma that has spread have responded good with my method.

Are

>>>What have you done?

Alon

 

[Guest guest]

Are

thanks i saw it in your next emailo

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

creative_energies , " kahunamaker "

<kahunamaker> wrote:

creative_energies , " Lari Ward "

<lariward@e...> wrote:

 

> I need some advice. I have a client with lung cancer.

 

First, I am assuming that you really want some help, and not some

huggy feely answer...

 

....and I'll do my best to help.

 

....Energy and the manipulation of energy FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES (like

an energy therapist) is important, but until she can manipulate them

(her own mind, spirit and energies) from the inside of HER

mind/body/spirit, it won't last, probably.

 

So continue doing all that you are doing, and add to the " Miracle

Mix " other resources from mind training.

 

I know that you have an INTENTION that is positive towards her.

 

Now, does she have an INTENTION that is positive towards herself?

 

Many people that have cancer, do not.

 

Your " intention " on her energies is like a light buld in an

auditorium.

 

Her " intentions " on her energies, on her goals, on her positive

outcomes, are like a laser beam bouncing off the moon!

 

So, along with the energy drills, teach her how-to-use her

INTENTIONS at a deep level of mind, where the unconscious filters,

values, beliefs and learnings are interfering with the conscious

desire to get well.

 

This means that you might want to teach her all the drills and

skills in Donna's book, pages 317-339.

 

Then you'll need to add on to that, other skills that will help her

dissolve those " black boxes " (negative tag ends to positive

thoughts), so that when she uses the creative mechanism of her

subconscious mind, she is using it for " what she WANTS, instead of

what she does NOT want. "

 

That is VERY important.

 

You can get these drills from David Feinstein's great new Energy

Psychology Interactive. Just read the book, and teach her as you

learn at the same time.

 

Deep Hypnosis is another method of doing great subconscious

work...another method of unifying both conscious and unconscious

minds towards one positive outcome. Then, once the deep hooked up

mind state is learned, it can be triggered at will consciously to do

the proper " thought-forms " and visualizations on the etheric fields

when at conscious theta brain wave.

 

If you have the Remote Viewing Centering drill, they can easily

adapt that mind drill for a healing drill. Let me know and I'll mail

a copy.

 

That positive intentions, while at theta/alpha should be done, by

her, in a private room, 3 times a day for 15 minutes each time.

 

The good news is, Dr. Carl Simonton and his wife Stephanie, did have

great success with long term cancer patients.

 

Complete remissions. Longer life. Better health. And, this was in

terminal patients.

 

The bad news is, they both were punished by the allopatic community

for using such outlandish technologies, EVEN if they worked.

 

Sort of like Energy Psychology is now being treated by the Clinical

Psychological community.

 

Anyway...

 

What happens (a very short, simple definition) when a person uses

the Centering drill and consciously goes to alpha/theta, is that

their Triple Warmer normalizes. Once their TW normalizes, then then

Immune system kicks back into gear like it was meant to.

 

So, healing, is much more successful.

 

Then, add to that Miracle Mix, the " intentions " as-if they are

already true, you actually will get miracles.

 

This is a quickee post for a serious project. If you want more, let

me know.

 

John M. La Tourrette

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Jason,

It is not splitting hairs if you live/practice in CA and most likely not

within your scope of practice in any of the other states as well. I wish

that it were not so but until we change the laws it is. By the way, thanks

for the historical perspective.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

> Cancer

>Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:13:49 -0000

>

>It looks like Cancer is a TCM disease after all??

>

>Recently I have been studying a lot on Cancer and and

>interestingly in the introduction of this Cancer book, which BTW is

>exclusively , starts off by saying. " TCM has been

>developed for over 2000 years. The huangdineijing is the earliest

>medical treatise which compiled many tumor-related terms, such as shi

>liu (chronic tumor)… Subsequent doctors of various dynasties described

>goiters (ying liu), wart, abdominal mass (ji ju)… and Cancer (ai).

>They are all classified as tumors… The doctors and treatment of these

>diseases in their books. " This author IMO considers Cancer part of CM.

>

>Either way Chinese doctors use disease names like Cancer &

>endometriosis. Call it integrative, call is Western, or call is

>whatever – This is IMO just splitting hairs… CM IS integrative, it is

>expanding… and it is clear that using such terms, which the Chinese as

>a whole are doing, only gives us more information on the disease

>process… I would like to see anyone out there try to treat Cancer with

>just addressing some Zang-Fu pattern, or just fatigue and nausea.

>

>-

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Careful, young'un. There is a Cancer Care Control Act here in

Colorado. Historically, all CAM practitioners (of which I am aware)

who have been prosecuted in this state for practicing without a

license or beyond their legally mandated scope of practice have been

popped because of treating cancer patients. One of the first

acupuncturists in this state was selling computers and then cars last

I heard for this very reason. This is like waving a red flag in front

of a bull.

 

One of the scary things is that a patient may love and value your

treatment, but their family may be the ones that sue you. Came within

a hair's breath myself of this happening to me. When I did get popped

by the BME, it was simply because of a case history I had PUBLISHED

about treating a cancer patient. The patient herself never complained.

The c-word is fraught with special perils.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

I don't know if your post is directed at me, but I assume it is since I

started this thread. I appreciate your warning, but I would never try to

treat Cancer. Not only do I recognize the ethical issues you mention, but I

think I am far from qualified to approach such a disease. I just like

studying the topic because the approach that is taken can be applied to many

diseases (i.e. mixed convoluted patterns.) On the other hand, I see no legal

issues in giving support to someone who is going through a Western medical

Cancer protocol.

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:08 AM

>

> Re: Cancer

>

> Careful, young'un. There is a Cancer Care Control Act here in

> Colorado. Historically, all CAM practitioners (of which I am aware)

> who have been prosecuted in this state for practicing without a

> license or beyond their legally mandated scope of practice have been

> popped because of treating cancer patients. One of the first

> acupuncturists in this state was selling computers and then cars last

> I heard for this very reason. This is like waving a red flag in front

> of a bull.

>

> One of the scary things is that a patient may love and value your

> treatment, but their family may be the ones that sue you. Came within

> a hair's breath myself of this happening to me. When I did get popped

> by the BME, it was simply because of a case history I had PUBLISHED

> about treating a cancer patient. The patient herself never complained.

> The c-word is fraught with special perils.

>

> Bob

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Is this a problem even if you are not claiming to CURE cancer? Are they saying

you can't, say, try to address other health issues or the side effects of chemo,

etc.?

ann

 

 

Careful, young'un. There is a Cancer Care Control Act here in

Colorado. Historically, all CAM practitioners (of which I am aware)

who have been prosecuted in this state for practicing without a

license or beyond their legally mandated scope of practice have been

popped because of treating cancer patients. One of the first

acupuncturists in this state was selling computers and then cars last

I heard for this very reason. This is like waving a red flag in front

of a bull.

 

One of the scary things is that a patient may love and value your

treatment, but their family may be the ones that sue you. Came within

a hair's breath myself of this happening to me. When I did get popped

by the BME, it was simply because of a case history I had PUBLISHED

about treating a cancer patient. The patient herself never complained.

The c-word is fraught with special perils.

 

Bob

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ann,

 

The cancer diagnosis should be a major red flad and caution for any

treatment especially herbs. Herbs should be critically evaluated and maybe

not even used if you, the MD or the patient's family think it might compete

with their chemo.

 

If there is even a small chance of this ending up with problems than I would

say walk away. The desire to help others has cost many other natural health

practitioners their lives and livelihood due to our legal society and turf

battles on healthcare.

 

An MD can kill a person with this stuff and it is considered legit care

while we cannot even help in some cases w/o being guilty of a crime. It is

insane, which is why I would recommend avoiding this type of case

altogether. These people need much more than we can provide like live-in

care (sanitarium style) with lots of good food and changes in mind, body and

spirit. I could recommend a lot more items but I think you get the idea.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

><snakeoil.works

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:11:23 -0400

>

>Is this a problem even if you are not claiming to CURE cancer? Are they

>saying you can't, say, try to address other health issues or the side

>effects of chemo, etc.?

>ann

>

>

> Careful, young'un. There is a Cancer Care Control Act here in

> Colorado. Historically, all CAM practitioners (of which I am aware)

> who have been prosecuted in this state for practicing without a

> license or beyond their legally mandated scope of practice have been

> popped because of treating cancer patients. One of the first

> acupuncturists in this state was selling computers and then cars last

> I heard for this very reason. This is like waving a red flag in front

> of a bull.

>

> One of the scary things is that a patient may love and value your

> treatment, but their family may be the ones that sue you. Came within

> a hair's breath myself of this happening to me. When I did get popped

> by the BME, it was simply because of a case history I had PUBLISHED

> about treating a cancer patient. The patient herself never complained.

> The c-word is fraught with special perils.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ann-

As far as I understand, it is legal for us to treat the side effects

that may arise from pharmaceutical cancer treatments. Yes, there are

scope of practice limitations in treating cancer itself which seem to

vary by state.

 

FYI - I will be attending a seminar at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer

Center in NYC in September entitled - Acupuncture for the Cancer

Patient. MSKCC has a well known Integrative Medicine department which

includes acupuncture and qigong therapy. Here is a link to their

workshop page, they offer the acupuncture workshop on an ongoing basis

though I believe that the September one is full -

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/11802.cfm

 

If people are interested I will post about how the workshop goes in

September.

 

Cheers,

Adam Schreiber

 

, <snakeoil.works@m...> wrote:

> Is this a problem even if you are not claiming to CURE cancer? Are

they saying you can't, say, try to address other health issues or the

side effects of chemo, etc.?

> ann

>

>

> Careful, young'un. There is a Cancer Care Control Act here in

> Colorado. Historically, all CAM practitioners (of which I am aware)

> who have been prosecuted in this state for practicing without a

> license or beyond their legally mandated scope of practice have been

> popped because of treating cancer patients. One of the first

> acupuncturists in this state was selling computers and then cars last

> I heard for this very reason. This is like waving a red flag in front

> of a bull.

>

> One of the scary things is that a patient may love and value your

> treatment, but their family may be the ones that sue you. Came within

> a hair's breath myself of this happening to me. When I did get popped

> by the BME, it was simply because of a case history I had PUBLISHED

> about treating a cancer patient. The patient herself never complained.

> The c-word is fraught with special perils.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

An MD can kill a person with this stuff and it is considered legit care

while we cannot even help in some cases w/o being guilty of a crime.

>>>>Mike not so simple. An MD can loose his lic just has fast if he is not an

oncologist. Cancer is a very sensitive subject for all of us.

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Good point but in general the concept of chemo, radiation or surgery for

cancer care is not good science. The theory is to eliminate the problem

(cancer) at all costs even if it kills the patient. I have seen this

terrible calamity in action with several relatives.

 

We, as a profession, are more apt to be taken to task if a cancer patient

dies and we gave them herbs (possible herb-drug interactions). An MD can

play the blame game and divert attention to us as they are the medical

authority and the legal system is on their side in this one.

 

While you are correct about the importance of the specialty, my point about

general theory is also correct. In reality life is simple. Either the

patient lives or they die. This may not be the answer you want but it is

the truth. The more extreme the medicine, the more extreme the body

response.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:05:32 -0700

>

>An MD can kill a person with this stuff and it is considered legit care

>while we cannot even help in some cases w/o being guilty of a crime.

> >>>>Mike not so simple. An MD can loose his lic just has fast if he is not

>an oncologist. Cancer is a very sensitive subject for all of us.

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have seen this

terrible calamity in action with several relatives.

>>>>At the same time for example, My mother in-law had poorly differentiated

lymphoma stage IV did very aggressive chemo and is alive 11 years later. She

would have drowned in her own fluid without WM. My father in-law had ampullary

carcinoma ( a type of pancreatic CA) which is 100% fatal with not caught in type

and surgically treated. He is still alive 25 years later. I agree WM does poorly

with many CA but also very well with others. So we should have this discussion

based evidence and specifics not feelings

..

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study that showed

only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

 

I am glad that you have had a couple of relatives who have outlived the five

year survival period but that does not dismiss the growing concern that WM

is not following science but politics. When FDA and other groups are

turning a blind eye to the pharm studies and allowing dangerous drugs to get

on the market, what's up with that?

 

Cancer is a problematic issue that seems to be growing more and more and WM

is not the answer to its elimination as it does not consider the organism in

its equation.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:26:08 -0700

>

> I have seen this

>terrible calamity in action with several relatives.

> >>>>At the same time for example, My mother in-law had poorly

>differentiated lymphoma stage IV did very aggressive chemo and is alive 11

>years later. She would have drowned in her own fluid without WM. My father

>in-law had ampullary carcinoma ( a type of pancreatic CA) which is 100%

>fatal with not caught in type and surgically treated. He is still alive 25

>years later. I agree WM does poorly with many CA but also very well with

>others. So we should have this discussion based evidence and specifics not

>feelings

>.

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike

Don't get me wrong, I think MW has tons of problems, but i always like to talk

about specifics instead of just bashing. Just like i hate it when there is a

negative study on acupuncture and the media says study shows acupuncture does

not work. To have a professional level discussion i think we need to speak in

detail. As i said, i think there is many great things about CM and many great

things about WM and there is plenty of shit both in WM and CM.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> Friday, August 05, 2005 7:59 PM

>

> Re: Re: Cancer

>

> Alon,

>

> The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study that

> showed

> only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

> validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

 

Can you cite this please...

 

-

[Guest guest]

only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

> validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

>>>>>I forget were i read it but i saw a very convincing rebottle to this'

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

While I thought this number to be high, it is a part of a govt report and

therefore one type of recognized authority. On the other hand, the rebuttle

may make sense but its authority may be questionable.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:48:49 -0700

>

>only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

> > validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

> >>>>>I forget were i read it but i saw a very convincing rebottle to this'

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

I think we mentioned it before but here is the link to this report (check

under chapter 4 where it states that 80-90% of " then " current technologies

were without enough scientific support). It is good to have access to this

info when we want to challenge or discuss things.

 

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

>RE: Re: Cancer

>Sat, 6 Aug 2005 07:50:37 -0600

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> > Friday, August 05, 2005 7:59 PM

> >

> > Re: Re: Cancer

> >

> > Alon,

> >

> > The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study that

> > showed

> > only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

> > validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

>

>Can you cite this please...

>

>-

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > Alon,

> >

> > The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study

that

> > showed

> > only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any

scientific

> > validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

>

> Can you cite this please...

>

> -

 

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1978/7805_n.html

 

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Assessing Efficacy and

Safety of Medical Technology (Washington D.C.: OTA 1978).

 

See introduction and summary statement for the explanation of the

10-20% number that is batted around. Given that it is almost 30 years

later how do those numbers shed any light on the current state of

affairs? I don't think that they have much validity except when

people are reaching for facts to make inferences. Does anyone have

have any more current data of the same ilk? Come to think of it even

if there is more current data what is the nexus of comparison? There

isn't any data I'm aware of outside of the acupunture safety review to

talk about safety, efficacy and or iatrogenic illness and the Chinese

medicine profession. There is no way to honestly do an apples to

apples comparison at least in terms of the aforementioned study. If

there is anything to be garned from the study mentioned I think it is

to question yourself about the assessment and question the diagnosis

(western and eastern) when suspicious.

Regards,

Michael

[Guest guest]

On the other hand, the rebuttle

may make sense but its authority may be questionable.

>>>>It was written by a medical committee and was very detailed. They clearly

analyzed the methodology of the gov report and address specifics. A lot wm

medical techniques have not been assessed. For example, does it save lives if

you operate on someone with a ruptured appendix, or does dig work for heart

rhythm problems, or does rehydrating a patient saves lives. These are excepted

and viewed as medical fact. However, because there are no randomized controlled

studies they cannot be considered scientifically valid.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

You bring up an interesting thought which is why you cannot have it both

ways. If we are to believe that scientific methods and research are needed

to make appropriate healthcare decisions than WM better get its head out

from under its ... and get going.

 

Your example speaks of common sense but since this no longer rules decsion

making we dare not use it in conversation any longer. Remember that science

rules!

 

(This statement brought to you by groups with their own agendas).

 

We could get into this whole issue about what is and what is not really

science but then we would be looking at scrapping most of what we have been

led to think is scientific truth and we dare not cross that line.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:39:41 -0700

>

>On the other hand, the rebuttle

>may make sense but its authority may be questionable.

> >>>>It was written by a medical committee and was very detailed. They

>clearly analyzed the methodology of the gov report and address specifics. A

>lot wm medical techniques have not been assessed. For example, does it save

>lives if you operate on someone with a ruptured appendix, or does dig work

>for heart rhythm problems, or does rehydrating a patient saves lives. These

>are excepted and viewed as medical fact. However, because there are no

>randomized controlled studies they cannot be considered scientifically

>valid.

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Forgot to ask if you could please post this report. Thanks

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: Cancer

>Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:39:41 -0700

>

>On the other hand, the rebuttle

>may make sense but its authority may be questionable.

> >>>>It was written by a medical committee and was very detailed. They

>clearly analyzed the methodology of the gov report and address specifics. A

>lot wm medical techniques have not been assessed. For example, does it save

>lives if you operate on someone with a ruptured appendix, or does dig work

>for heart rhythm problems, or does rehydrating a patient saves lives. These

>are excepted and viewed as medical fact. However, because there are no

>randomized controlled studies they cannot be considered scientifically

>valid.

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Forgot to ask if you could please post this report

>>>>Mike i cannot remember were i saw it. It was many years ago

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You bring up an interesting thought which is why you cannot have it both

ways. If we are to believe that scientific methods and research are needed

to make appropriate healthcare decisions than WM better get its head out

from under its ... and get going

>>>>>I agree with you.However, there are many things that are now done routinely

that are not going to be reassed. You will never see a study allowing patients

to dehydrate and see if rehydration is good for them

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

Thanx for posting the link to the report.

 

-Jason

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> Saturday, August 06, 2005 11:58 AM

>

> RE: Re: Cancer

>

> Jason,

>

> I think we mentioned it before but here is the link to this report (check

> under chapter 4 where it states that 80-90% of " then " current technologies

> were without enough scientific support). It is good to have access to

> this

> info when we want to challenge or discuss things.

>

> http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

>

> > " "

> >

> >

> >RE: Re: Cancer

> >Sat, 6 Aug 2005 07:50:37 -0600

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> > > Friday, August 05, 2005 7:59 PM

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Cancer

> > >

> > > Alon,

> > >

> > > The Office of Technology Assessment (US govt office) did a study that

> > > showed

> > > only about 15-20% of all the current WM procedures had any scientific

> > > validity. This is not my feelings but a govt report.

> >

> >Can you cite this please...

> >

> >-

> >

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>