Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

To The Cancer Patient

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

TO THE CANCER PATIENT

- Tim O'Shea

 

 

 

 

OK, so you've finally said No more - whatever happens will happen.

You've refused further standard cancer treatment because you've

found out either through research or through personal experience,

that for the vast majority of cancer cases, it just doesn't work.

People's last months are made miserable with no upside.

 

 

So there you are, without a net. Guess what? There never was one. So

forget the politics of hospitals and insurance. You may feel that

they ran their game on you and the required funds were transferred

from one account to another in some data base somewhere, and here

you are sitting at home looking out the window.

 

A good warrior must always assess his present position, evaluate his

losses and assets, and move forward. So what have you got? Well,

you're alive. Maybe they predicted that you wouldn't make it this

long or else you've got X amount of time to live. Who cares? You're

no longer on their agenda, so now your calendar's wide open. You

refuse to die on schedule.

 

What else have you got? Well, you still have some kind of immune

system left, or else you'd be dead. What's an immune system? It's a

complicated system of cells and biological reactions which the body

employs to ward off invaders and to prevent its own cells from

deteriorating or mutating. The immune system is responsible for

recognizing foreign proteins and cells and for triggering an attack

against them. The immune system is involved with a never-ending

second-by-second check of all your cells to see if they still look

like the rest of you. If they don't, they're immediately destroyed.

 

Most researchers, including Nobel prize winner Sir MacFarlane

Burnet, feel that in the normal body hundreds of cancer cells appear

every day. These mutating cells are simply destroyed by the normal

immune system and never cause a problem. Cancer only proliferates

when a failing immune system begins to allow abnormal cells to slip

by without triggering an attack on them. That's how you got cancer.

 

So looking at it this way, a tumor is a symptom, not a problem. A

symptom of a failing immune system. Cancer is a general condition

that localizes rather than a local condition which generalizes.

 

Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never

caused any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of

thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than

ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top

British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often

leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate

cancer but only 1% die from it.

 

After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2%

die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many

problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful

procedures. Guess which system is the most important to you at this

time, more than it's ever been before in your whole life. Right -

the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from chemotherapy

and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most

need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. If

you're one of the few cancer patients who's refused standard

treatment from the get-go - good, but your immune system still needs

all the help you can give it.

 

A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223

patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer

actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or

surgical procedure. (Johansson)

 

NEW DIET - NEW DISEASE

 

A hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S. At

that time people relied more on whole foods, unrefined and generally

in their original form. Gradually, processed foods became a greater

and greater proportion of the American diet during the 1940s and

into the 1950s, first in the canning industry, which then developed

into the food processing industry. The idea was to make food last on

the shelves as long as possible, thereby increasing overall profits.

The way this was done was by removing the natural enzymes contained

in the food. Enzymes are what makes food go bad, but they are also

what makes food digestible by the human body. So as more and more

sophisticated methods of removing enzymes from food were discovered,

shelf life increased, and food value decreased.

 

What does all this have to do with cancer? I'm getting to that.

 

CRITICAL VALUE OF ENZYMES

 

When food that is difficult to digest continues to be forced into

the body, month after month, year after year, our own digestive

system struggles valiantly to try to break down all these weird,

manmade foods that have only this century appeared on the human

scene. But eventually the system gets overtaxed, and wears out. We

keep taking in the same amounts of pizza, burgers, spaghetti, milk,

cheese, chips, and fries, but since we can't digest them completely,

they start accumulating in the digestive tract. Before long, we

start absorbing the undigested food into the bloodstream, intact.

Big problem.

 

The autopsy on Elvis found 20 pounds of undigested food in the

intestine. With John Wayne it was 44! That took years!

 

 

Now remember that all food is in one of three forms: fats, proteins,

and carbohydrates. Normal digestion breaks them down into their

usable forms - fats into fatty acids, proteins into amino acids, and

carbohydrates into glucose. But if they are absorbed whole into the

blood stream, which is abnormal digestion, many bad results occur,

most of which have a direct bearing on the emergence of cancer.

 

Clumping together of red blood cells is a sign of the absorption of

undigested protein. In normal blood, the red cells should be round,

freely movable, and unattached. That way they can make their way

through the blood vessels and accomplish their number one job, which

you will remember is to carry oxygen to all the cells of the body.

But the accumulation of undigested protein in the blood makes these

red blood cells stick together, like stacks of coins, or like globs

of motor oil. Once it gets like this, the blood tends to stay

aggregated. Imagine the difficulty, then, for the blood to circulate

in such a glopped-up condition. The smallest blood vessels, through

which the blood has to pass each time around, are the capillaries.

But unfortunately, the diameter of a capillary is only the same as

one of the red blood cells - they're supposed to circulate in single

file. So what happens in a body whose red cells are all stuck

together for a few years? It's not rocket science: the tissues of

the body become oxygen deprived and are forced to stew in their own

wastes.

 

Are we talking about cancer yet? We sure are. Nobel laureate Dr.

Otto Warburg discovered in the 1920s what all researchers now know:

most cancers cannot exist well in an oxygen-rich environment. Why is

it that people don't die of cancer of the heart? Just doesn't

happen. Why not? Because that's where the most highly oxygenated

blood is, and cancer doesn't like oxygen.

 

Even more favorable for cancer is a setting of fermentation. That's

a big word for half-digested carbohydrates (sugar). Every bootlegger

knows that as sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are the

oxygen leaving. Cancer doesn't like oxygen too well, but it loves

sugar. Starting to get the picture here? Fermentation means half-

digested. Remember we talked about all that undigested food

accumulating in the gut and in the bloodstream because of not enough

enzymes? Well, a lot of that food was carbohydrate - you know,

donuts, beer, candy, ice cream, Pepsi, bread, pastries, etc.

 

Worse yet, the white cells, which are supposed to circulate as the

immune system, become trapped in all this muck. Remember what their

job was? Right, to remove foreign stuff immediately. A cancer cell

is foreign stuff.

 

ACID/ALKALINE

 

Another factor is pH. Acid-forming foods, such as the above, make

the blood more acidic. To sustain life, human blood pH must be in

the range of 7.3 - 7.45 (Guyton). Outside that range, we're dead.

Remember, the lower the number, the more acidity. The more acid the

blood is, the less oxygen it contains, and the faster a person ages

and degenerates. There's a major difference in oxygen even within

the narrow range of " normal' blood pH: blood that is pH 7.3 actually

has 69.4% less oxygen than 7.45 blood, according to Whang's book,

Reverse Aging. On a practical level, this means we should do

everything to keep the pH on the high side of the range, as close as

possible to 7.45, by eating as many alkaline foods as possible. That

would be, you guessed it - live, raw foods, especially green foods.

 

That's the faintest sketch about enzyme deficiency and acid-forming

foods as primary causes of creating a favorable environment in which

cancer can grow.

 

WHO'S WINNING?

 

We're constantly being hit with media stories about " progress " in

the war on cancer and new " breakthrough " drugs and procedures

being " right around the corner. " The military rhetoric hasn't

changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against

cancer like they're always telling us?

 

From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the

real story:

 

Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.

 

year --- deaths/ 100,000

 

1967--- 157.2

1970--- 162.9

1982--- 187.3

1987--- 198.2

1988--- 198.4

1989--- 201.0

1990--- 203.2

1991--- 204.1

1992--- 204.1

 

source: Vital Statistics of the United States

vol.II 1967-1992

 

 

1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from

Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be

any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent

analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the

1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress?

 

Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.

 

Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw

data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone

can dig this information up by going to any library reference

section. But try finding a medical reference or journal article or a

URL that uses this chart. Try finding a newspaper or magazine

article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And this data

says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than

ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early

detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not

radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.

 

Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in

this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per

100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer,

opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the

government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50

billion per year was being spent to " find the cure. " And yet we have

the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?

 

THE BUSINESS OF CANCER

 

Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and selling. You

know - life. More people living off cancer than ever died from it,

and that's saying quite a lot since by the 1990s the amount spent

for cancer research and treatment had jumped to $80 billion

annually. But by this time more than 500,000 deaths per year in the

U.S. were attributable to cancer, now second only to heart disease

on the list of killer diseases. All this money has not improved the

overall chances of survival from cancer even slightly.

 

Many cancer patients feel they're just a mark, a number, an

insurance account. The goal of every visit seems to be running up

the bill, not improving their overall health.

 

The American Cancer Society, for example, collects upwards of $400

million per year. Very little of this money ever finds its way to

research. The majority of the money goes into investments and

towards administration - lavish salaries and perqs for the Society's

officers and employees. A funny thing is that written into the

charter of the American Cancer Society is the clause that states

that if a cure for cancer is ever found, on that day, the Society

will disband. (The Cancer Industry) So think about it - is this an

organization that is going to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?

 

This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the surface,

coming at us every day from the scripted " reporting " of TV and news

publications, or from the lips of the oncologists making their

reassuring pronouncements on the outlook for our loved ones' chances

of survival? We're " making progress. " " Early detection " is giving us

a much better chance of " getting it all " by means of immediate

surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after surgery they

tell us we need to do chemo to put " the icing on the cake. "

Frightened to death, and having nowhere else to turn, people have

bought this company line for years and years. As a result, they have

been dying on schedule. But then, why would people be told the

truth? The goal of big money is big money. Finding a cure? Why on

earth would anyone want to do that?

 

But there's a limit to everything, even with the stranglehold on

information that is permitted to reach the purview of the general

public. More and more of us have watched our parents or our friends

die wretched deaths, as all the 'big guns' were pompously wheeled

out, with the hospital happily billing the insurance until coverage

runs out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this isn't about

money - this is about my life. And people are deciding to take their

chances without standard slash-and-burn protocols, either by just

staying home and doing nothing, or else by experimentation with

alternative therapies, which have always been there all these years,

just below the surface.

 

CHEMOTHERAPY

 

Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:

 

" chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority of

cases in which it is given "

 

- Ralph Moss, PhD p81

 

" Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all

have contributed to a situation in which many people with common

malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective. "

- Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA

 

" despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality

has not changed in the last 70 years "

- Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707

 

" Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any

tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable

failure. "

 

- Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901

" Medical Oncology in the 90s "

 

" Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This

fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use

chemotherapy for these tumors. "

- Allen Levin, MD UCSF

The Healing of Cancer

 

 

Let's say you get cancer - in America it's 1 in 3. Your doctor says

you need chemo and sends you to an office in the hospital. You have

no symptoms yet, no pain, and you feel fine. But you're very

frightened. You walk into the office and everyone else there is in

obvious pain and most of them are dying. It's like a scene from a

horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: I'm not like them! I'm

alive! What am I doing here?

 

Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have your

true instincts been wrong?

 

CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE

 

How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact

is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove

chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very

rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority

of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just

doesn't work.

 

A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic,

Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of

every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His

conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the

Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever

published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical

centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had

published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it

is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy

than he.

 

The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:

Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy

was " appalling " because there was simply no scientific evidence

available anywhere that chemotherapy can " extend in any appreciable

way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic

cancers. " Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the

quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as " a scientific

wasteland " and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy

administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to

the " emperor's new clothes " - neither doctor nor patient is willing

to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific

evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even

mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.

 

Similar are the conclusions of most medical researchers who actually

try to work their way past all the smoke and mirrors to get to the

real statistics. In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing

that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly

extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable,

but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.

 

Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great

lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer,

by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr.

Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:

 

Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes

even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks

temporarily, the patient is listed as having " responded to "

chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger

soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The

fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order

to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that

the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is

to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.

 

Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on

certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's

lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a

bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.

 

Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure

is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die

of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National

Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000

patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy.

Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these

patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the

normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within

the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken

into account.

 

In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks

analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has

been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.

 

THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK

 

Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:

 

1. what the drug initially does to the body

2. how the body adapts to the drug

 

Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria

in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with

the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful,

mutated forms. Steroids? First, muscles are built because

testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting

production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the

athlete by shrinking the gonads. Heroin? First it blocks the pain

receptors and sends happy hormones called endorphins through the

body, giving an overall feeling of wonderfulness. The body responds,

by getting so used to this euphoria that when the heroin is stopped,

the reality of pain receptors going back to work again is

unbearable.

 

Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.

 

Dr. Dean Black puts it this way:

 

 

 

" Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets

up a vicious cycle. "

Health at the Crossroads p 20

 

 

The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other

researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come

back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work

was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in

1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy

is to replicate even harder and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so

the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can,

which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will

resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they

get. Black sees cancer itself is just an adaptation; a normal

response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes

adaptation. (Black, p.45) This is why we all know people who have

had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the

tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was

quickly overwhelmed.

 

Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on

a tumor that otherwise may have been self-limiting:

 

 

" Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more

lethal forms? "

 

- Robert Schimke p1915

 

 

Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk

about " mopping up " with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we " got

it all. " Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a " pre-cancerous "

or even a benign situation.

 

To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs

are fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes

its will upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete

information to be doing something that arrogant.

 

GENE AMPLIFICATION

 

is an important concept to understand if you are being given

combinations of more than one chemotherapy drug at once. " Cocktails "

have become standard treatment in many oncological protocols:

concoctions of two or more powerful cytotoxic agents which

supposedly will " attack the tumor " in different ways. In the above

study, Robert Schimke noted that with chemo combos the rebound

effect - the second phase where the tumor responds to the drug - may

bring about a tumor cell proliferation rate which may be 100 times

faster than the response to one single chemo drug may have been.

Proliferation means the rate at which the tumor cells reproduce

themselves, i.e., grow.

 

CYTOTOXIC

 

is the word that describes chemotherapeutic drugs. It means " cell-

killing. " Chemo-therapy kills all the cells of the body, not just

the cancer cells. The risk is that chemo will kill the patient

before it kills the cancer. Which usually happens. Therefore the

only question that should be asked when deciding whether or not to

begin chemo is this: will this drug prolong the patient's natural

lifespan? Is it likely to? The unadorned data says no.

 

BREAST CANCER

 

which today 1 in 8 American women may expect, is an obvious area of

failure and misinformation. A professor at Northwestern U School of

Medicine, Dr. Edward Scanlon states:

 

 

" over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has evolved

from no treatment to radical treatment and back again with more

conservative management, without having affected mortality. "

Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 4, 1991.

 

 

In their latest mood swing, recently the medical consensus, whatever

that means, is moving back toward more radical mastectomy again. In

an article from the New York Times, 14 Jan 99, a new Mayo Clinic

study being published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is

backtracking to a former position. Bilateral radical mastectomy of

healthy breasts supposedly " reduces the risk of getting breast

cancer " by 90%! I am not making this up. Obviously, if a woman

doesn't have breasts, how can she get breast cancer? This type of

insanity - a recommendation to remove healthy breasts with the idea

to prevent a disease a woman doesn't have - makes you wonder what's

next. Why not euthanasia? - that way the patient will have a zero

percent chance of ever getting any disease again

 

What effects are these fickle, intellectualized medical opinions

having on death rate? None. Actually it's even worse than that. From

the same hard data sources cited above, Vital Statistics, we can

look up the actual death rate for breast cancer:

 

 

 

year --- deaths/ 100,000

 

1958--- 13.1

1970--- 14.3

1979--- 15.4

1989--- 17.4

1991--- 17.4

 

 

Early mammograms: no effect. Chemotherapy: no effect. Surgery: no

effect.

 

Figures like these are extremely well hidden and can only be

unearthed with great efforts, like walking up the stairs to the

fourth floor at the library. But that is a great effort. Who goes to

the library? A netsearch can instantly turn up 100 articles on the

latest chemotherapy drugs and their anticipated " breakthroughs "

and " response rates " that have always been " just around the corner "

since 1971. Every week shows dozens of magazine and newspaper

articles spouting the " latest thing " in chemotherapy. This is world

class dog-wagging. Olympic carrot-and-stick dangling.

 

Mammograms

 

This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific

proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American

Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National

Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women

under the age of 50 because of its " detrimental " (carcinogenic)

effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found that

women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had

increased death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine

Day notes the same findings in her video presentation " Cancer

Doesn't Scare Me Any More. " The reader is directed to these sources

and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those

selling the procedure, before making a decision.

 

John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature

on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year

generated by mammograms controls the information that women get.

Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade

women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography

cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By

the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it

has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to

advertise mammography as " early detection. " (McDougall p 114)

 

The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast

cancer, which they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression

of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the

possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes

that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-

limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ.

This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of

routine mammography. (McDougall, p105)

 

Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine

screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in

the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller

of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of

public funding for mammography screening, because the " benefit

achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial. " (Lancet,

1 Jul 1995) The harm they're referring to includes the constant

worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for

unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which

have a false positive rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec

1997)

 

PROSTATE CANCER

 

is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman

Zinner, MD. He states:

 

 

" Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never

knowing they had the problem. "

 

Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall

improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has

resulted in thousands of men being treated for a condition that

would have been self-limiting. No figures are available for those

who have died from the side effects of treatment when the condition

would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the

patient's entire lifetime. Composer Frank Zappa, now decomposing,

found out this fact before he died at 52, but it was too late. Some

studies show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in

which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient never knew

about, and which was not the cause of death. (American Cancer

Society, 1995).

 

There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy

for prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a

1992 study published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no

difference in 10 year survival rate between the men who did nothing

at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson)

 

Latest in the dog-and-pony show for prostate cancer: palladium

implants. A couple hundred radioactive implants each about the size

of a grain of rice are sewn into the scrotum (watch out for airport

metal detectors!) This unproven and experimental procedure harks

back to the days of radium implants in the blood, a very popular

procedure for several decades earlier in the 20th century, when the

Big Three were surgery, radiation, and radium implants. To see what

radium implants looked like, rent Jack Nicholson's The Two Jakes. No

cancer was ever cured from radium, and it was finally replaced by

chemotherapy, which has roughly the same success. Here's why

palladium implants are unlikely to work: it's not the prostate that

has cancer; it's the person. Cancer is systemic - it's all through

you.

 

SIDE EFFECTS OF CHEMOTHERAPY

 

It's already a word game. Drugs don't really have side effects. They

just have effects. Especially in the case of chemotherapy where

there's almost never any upside.

 

Since chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever

designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious,

and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie

Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which

it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She

went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday. What

happened? Most of that type patients survive, but even the ones that

don't usually won't die for a year or so. Some sources imagined that

since this was such a high profile patient, they'd given her

an " extra strong " dose to " kill the cancer " faster. Unfortunately

they miscalculated: there was a patient attached.

 

Aside from the standard hair loss, nausea, vomiting, headache, and

dizziness, many chemotherapy drugs have other specific severe side

effects. Most have an immediate suppressive effect on bone marrow.

This is where new blood cells are normally being produced all the

time. This is the #1 way chemo knocks out the immune system, at the

one time in your life you need it the most.

 

All are extremely hard on the liver, because that's the organ whose

job is to try and break down toxins that have made it past the

digestive tract. Liver fibrosis is a very common sequella of

methotrexate.

 

Methotrexate also causes bleeding ulcers, bone marrow suppression,

lung damage, and kidney damage.

(HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p5) It also causes " severe anemia, and has

triggered or intensified cancerous tumors. " (Ruesch, p 18)

 

The nitrogen mustard derivatives are, incredibly, still in use,

though usually in combination with other drugs. Common effects are

permanent sclerosing (hardening) of the veins, blood clotting, and

destruction of skin and mucous membranes.

 

Cytoxan is one of the most common chemo drugs. Besides the " normal "

side effects, it causes urinary bleeding, lung disease, and heart

damage.

 

Any of the alkylating agents commonly result in the cancer becoming

resistant to them. Thus the cancer is actually stimulated, and for

this reason, alkylating drugs must be thought of themselves as

carcinogenic, with new cancers from the drug as high as 10% of the

time! Hello? Anybody out there?

 

Any chemo drug can cause permanent neurological damage practically

anywhere in the body.

 

Corticosteroid drugs have an entire array of side effects, the worst

being immediate destruction of the gastric mucosa, which explains

loss of appetite, and also accelerated osteoporosis and cartilage

destruction in the joints.

 

This is just a partial list of some of the more common side effects,

but it really makes you wonder: are these effects really worth the

possible benefit of temporary tumor shrinkage with no proven

increase in survival?

 

WHAT KIND OF MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

 

There is really no way to track how many patients are receiving

chemotherapy per year. Or rather, it simply isn't done in the U.S.

the way it is in Europe. That fact is quite indicative in itself. If

the focus were health care, and monitoring the effectiveness of a

cure, why wouldn't there be extensive inter-hospital data bases to

follow up on successful treatment? What can be tracked is the amount

of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies. This amount

has grown from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss

p75) These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking

into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.

 

Cancer's share of the total US health budget is calculated at 9.8%

according to the AHCPR (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research)

1994 figures, the most recent. Let's see, 9.8% of 1 trillion

dollars: that means the cancer industry is turning over about $98

billion per year. Any questions?

 

It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from.

The first ones were made from mustard gas exactly like the weapons

that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the

Geneva Conventions. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly

began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No

one was cured. Most of the medical profession at that time regarded

such " treatment " of malignant disease as charlatanism.

 

Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around

1943. I60 patients were treated. No one was cured.

 

WHT NOT DRANO?

 

The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means

of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with

the success of antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the

heady atmosphere of visions of money and power in vanquishing

cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make extravagant claims

that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 " cytotoxins "

were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute.

The criteria in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of

the tumor cells before it kills the patient. That's it! Many were

brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands of others were existing

poisons which were simply refined. Finally about 50 drugs made the

cut, and are the basis of today's chemotherapy medicine cabinet.

 

One of these 50 is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole. With

no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term

survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent

even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for

its " immune system modulation " properties. However, its major

toxicities include:

 

- decreased white cell count (!)

- flu symptoms

- nausea

- abdominal cramps

- dizziness

 

Some immune booster!

 

A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal

of Cancer showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo

instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison

continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can

be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was

still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount

was suddenly upgraded to a cancer drug given to humans, now it costs

$1200 per year. Thank you, Johnson & Johnson. ( Los Angeles Times 11

Sep 93.)

 

DOSE-LIMITING

 

A funny phrase that doctors use when talking about chemotherapy is

that it is a " dose-limiting " treatment. All that means is that if

the dose is not limited, the patient dies. It is inexplicable when

patients tell me their family's chemotherapy stories, usually

involving a family member, in which they talk about toward the end,

where the doctors gave the patient " 5 times " or " 20 times " the

lethal dose! I hear this all the time, and when you really get what

they're saying, the level of barbarity is appalling. The doctors are

saying at the end, Well it's hopeless - we may as well give him 5 or

20 times the normal dose of an already poisonous drug, what

difference will it make? We tried our best. Totally forgetting that

the patient even while dying is a human being, and the goal wasn't

to kill the tumor; it was to save the patient. Or are they saying,

quick this guy is dying, the insurance is still running .? This is a

major risk of giving the hospital carte blanche. Reminds me of

giving a kid a credit card, hoping he'll be judicious.

 

When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or

anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring

the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and

all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going

to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease?

What's wrong with this picture?

 

INTERLEUKIN-2

 

is another colossal failure. When the oncologist starts talking

about interleukin-2, it's usually time to start thinking about

coffin selection, because by then the big stuff has been pretty much

tried and met with its usual failure. The brilliant thinking behind

interleukin-2 and other 'vaccine' - type agents is that now we're

gonna transform the patient's lymphocytes into an army of killer T-

cells, which will then descend on those troublesome cancer cells

and " root them out of there. " Just one problem with this theory: no

foreign antigens have ever been identified in tumor cells. And

that's the only way that lymphocytes work - destroying foreign

antigens - the not-self cells. So even if the T-cell count can be

boosted, there is simply no way these lymphocytes can be directed at

cancer cells, because the cancer cells don't appear that different

from normal cells.

 

The other vexatious feature of interleukin-2 therapy is that because

of its last-ditch status in the oncological pharmacopoeia, the

patient's immune system is generally so depressed by the

surgery/chemo/radiation it has just endured, there's simply not much

of it left to work with. Once your immune system's gone, so are you.

 

Professor George Annas, a medical ethicist, who analyzed the

controlled clinical trails done at the National Cancer Institute on

interleukin-2 was slightly less than enthusiastic about interleukin-

2 patients:

 

 

" more than 80% of the patients did not do any better and they

actually did worse. They died harder. That's not irrelevant. We

always tend to concentrate on the survivors, but we've got to make

the point that 80 per cent had terrific side effects and didn't get

any measurable increase in longevity. "

New York Times 3 Mar 94

 

 

Dr. Martin Shapiro agrees:

 

 

" revelations about the apparent ineffectiveness of the experimental

cancer drug interleukin-2 are but the tip of an iceberg of

misrepresentation and misunderstanding about cancer drug treatments

in general. "

 

Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87

 

 

METAPHORS OF WAR

 

Mainstream cancer theory is all in military terms:

 

 

the war on cancer

killing the tumor cells

killer T cells

stopping the advance

powerful drugs as weapons

 

 

This type of thinking is so pervasive that it's become second nature

for most of us. The very failure of the entire cancer industry to

slow the death rate over the past fifty years may indicate that

perhaps it's time to look for another paradigm. They have failed,

but they can't admit it because the whole thing is market-driven.

It's imponderable that doctors continue to prescribe a volatile

poison which they know will kill the patient, simply because it's

their only tool! This can't be an acceptable excuse! You don't want

to believe that things are really this perverse, but in most cases

due diligence will bring such a realization.

 

WHO ARE THE QUACKS?

 

The American Cancer Society and the FDA have a list of " Unproven

Methods " for cancer. As you might expect, the criteria for getting

on this list are predictable:

 

 

- in a natural form

- non-toxic

- not produced by the Drug Industry

- easily available without a prescription

- non-patentable

 

 

Even though chemotherapy and radiation and palladium implants are

completely unproven themselves, and frequently are the cause of

death themselves, they are not on the Unproven List. Why not?

Because they're expensive, can be completely controlled, and are

patentable. This last deserves some explanation.

 

In order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, the manufacturer must

do years of studies, which may cost anywhere between 17 to 100

million dollars. (Day) Now if a company is going to spend that kind

of money, they don't want some other company stealing their formula

after they've gone to all that trouble developing it. Their

guarantee is called a patent - legally it's their drug and no one

can copy it for 17 years.

 

Do you think after all that trouble, a drug company wants somebody

to come along with a totally cheap, available, and natural product

which has the same effect as their drug, yet with none of the side

effects? Of course not! And do you think they'll do everything they

can both legally and politically to prevent natural products from

reaching the market? You better believe it. Two books which best

document some of the effective natural cures for cancer which have

come along in the past 75 years and have faced a tidal wave of

opposition from the FDA/AMA/Drug Trust are: Ralph Moss's The Cancer

Industry and Richard Walters's Options. Some of these natural cures

are still around in the US, though they are under attack. Others can

only be obtained in Mexico or Europe. And still others have been

crushed out of existence for good by the Darth Vader faction. You

can do the historical research yourself on some of the following

products and innovators:

 

William Kelley, Hoxsey, Gaston Naessens, Max Gerson, Kurt Donsbach,

William Koch, Dr. Burzynski, Dr Blass, Dr. Loffler, Stan Bynum,

Patrick Flanagan, Microhydrin, 714x, Haelan, antineoplastins, raw

foods, live cell therapy, ozone, EDTA chelation, Laetrile, Coley

vaccines, Hydrazine sulfate, Hans Nieper, JH Tilden, whole foods

vitamins, antioxidants, colon detoxification, the Rife machine, the

black box, green foods - this is a partial list. Many names have

been lost forever. Separately or in combination, these methods and

these healers have resolved cancer in thousands of cases during the

past 75 years. Some of the technology has been repressed out of

existence - other methods are quite easy. What they have in common

is that they are non-patentable generally natural methods which have

no significant side effects, and work with one common goal:

strengthen the immune system. If cancer is to be overthrown, only

the body itself can do that.

 

The above names were not people whose first goal was to make

personal fortunes and lock their discoveries away from those who

wanted to copy them. The Drug Trust, which includes the

pharmaceutical industry, The AMA, the FDA, and even the FTC, have

what can only be described as a de facto monopoly on cancer

treatment in this company. Their goal is not curing cancer or

helping people die with dignity, or trying to discover a cure, or

relieving pain, or giving Americans a better life. Their only focus

is profit, and they have proven for the past century that there are

no limits they will observe to secure their control of what has

become an $90 billion per year industry. If this sounds harsh or

paranoid, start perusing the appended reference list and tell me

what you come up with. Or try and find one single treatment on the

FDA's " Unproven Methods " list that is patentable as a drug.

 

ALTERNATIVES

 

Now I've always heard it's not good manners to criticize without

offering an option, a new approach. What if that new overview would

focus on wholeness, on health, on only giving the body something

that will immediately improve its healing capabilities. The body's

resistance is already run down; let's build it back up.

 

So let's outline four main lines of action, all of which will

nourish and support whatever immune system you're still in

possession of.

 

 

#1 DIET

 

Simple. Clean it up. You know what's bad by now. Probably that's

what got you into this mess. If you're still smoking, stop reading

and throw this away. Sayonara. As far as food and drink, try this:

 

NO

milk

cheese

sugar

processed foods

soft drinks

 

DO EAT:

 

raw fruit roast fish water

whole grains fruit juice

raw vegetables pasta

 

 

 

Mega amounts of these live foods. Eat and drink constantly. Probably

won't kill you to cheat a little once in a while, but then again, it

might.

 

Even mainstream medicine acknowledges the importance of diet in

fighting cancer:

 

Over 3000 studies in mainstream medical journals document successful

treatment of cancer with nutritional supplementation. But the

medical profession continues to pretend that nutrition is a " feel-

good adjunct " to the " real treatment " - chemotherapy, radiation, and

surgery, even though these procedures have not significantly

improved survival rates since the time of our grandparents.

- NewEngJMed 314, 1986 1226

 

#2 STRESS

 

Avoid negative people and negative input. Disconnect your cable and

your TV antenna. Unplug your phone unless it brings happy news. This

step #2 is definitely not optional, I can tell you from personal

experience. If you're going to try a program like this, don't be

stupid enough to expect people's approval. Expect ridicule. Expect

threats. Then avoid those people. No matter who they are. Selfish?

You bet. Time to be selfish.

 

 

#3 EXERCISE

 

Do something. Breathe. Walk. Swim. Bicycle. Run. Work out.

Do something.

 

 

#4 THE SUPERFOODS

 

There are several products available on the market today which claim

to be of benefit to someone in your position. Many are bogus, some

are OK, and some are superlative. I think this would be a good time

to cut right to the superlative.

 

Of great value to the cancer patient would be:

 

 

1. Antioxidants

2. Digestive Enzymes

3. Colon Detox/ Flora

4. Vit/Mineral Complex

5. Oxygenators

6. collagen

 

Just a few words about each:

 

1. ANTIOXIDANTS

 

Know what free radicals are? Bad guys. Unstable molecules that get

into your blood and break down normal cells, then screw up your DNA

codes. If you've got cancer, it started with one cell. Where do free

radicals come from? Well,

 

- processed foods

- primary and secondary smoke

- air pollution

- environmental toxins

- radiation

- drugs and alcohol

- city life

- trauma

 

Think you got any? Free radicals change DNA within cells. When the

number of free radicals that we take in every day becomes greater

than what the body's available antioxidants can deal with, those

changed cells start reproducing themselves. And that's how cancer

starts. Cancer happens when cells proliferate but can no longer

specialize.

 

This is not a theory, but is totally verifiable and recognized,

except by those who don't do their homework.

 

A hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S.

Processed foods became a greater and greater proportion of the

American diet during the 1940s and into the 1950s, first in the

canning industry, which then developed into the food processing

industry. Fast food restaurants began in the 60s and by the 70s had

moved into almost every neighborhood from New York to Los Angeles.

The chemical additives and preservatives in these new foods are a

prime source of free radical production.

 

More bad news is that any one free radical can proliferate by means

of a little biochemical birthday party known as free radical chain-

carrying mechanism. One guy becomes a thousand, real fast.

 

Antioxidants are substances that neutralize free radicals, rendering

them instantly harmless. Without going on for 25 pages, Life Force

Antioxidant is one of the most potent and cleanest antioxidant

blends available, not just theoretically, but instantly verifiable

on microscope even to a non-medical eye.

 

Another extremely effective antioxidant on the scene today is called

microhydrin. Without going into a long explanation, it simply puts

tons of free hydrogen electrons into the body which neutralize free

radicals, much faster than vitamin C, pycnogenol, or selenium. Just

take it. You're already losing the free radical battle. Two capsules

four times a day will minimize free radical damage to the red cells

and tissues. For those trying to make up for lost time, 6-10 per day

are recommended, until you're winning the battle.

 

2. DIGESTIVE ENZYMES

 

Enzymes break down food and let it be digested, and then used.

Processed food has no enzymes. Fruits and vegetables grown in

American topsoil in 1996 have insufficient enzymes for complete

breakdown by the body. Any food that has been cooked has no enzymes.

Results: the food doesn't get digested. Some of it just stays right

in there, in the gut and in the blood. (See Enzymes chapter –

www.thedoctorwithin.com)

 

The undigested food in the GI tract putrefies and remains in place,

blocking the intestine and giving off toxins and gas as it rots.

We've all heard the statistic that the average American male age 35

has about 5 lbs. of undigested protein stuck to the intestinal

lining.

 

The rancid fat and putrefying protein in the blood also cause

blockage, but in a different way - actually in two ways. The fats

end up as cholesterol stuck to the inside of arteries, causing blood

flow to be blocked. And the other way is this: undigested protein

causes the red blood cells to clump together like stacks of coins.

Thus blood flow is blocked even further, preventing all organs and

tissues from getting oxygen. Lack of oxygen is the #1 factor that

promotes the growth and spread of cancer.

 

Although there are several good whole-food enzymes available today,

Infinity's digestive enzyme, called Digest-A-Meal, immediately can

reverse the stack of coins mechanism of the blood cells. In

addition, it can set to work unblocking the digestive tract by

breaking down the residual proteins which have been hanging around

inside there. Digest-A-Meal is powerful - about 95% of people tested

can see a visible change in their blood sample within 15 minutes!

This is no wild claim.

 

Normal people need whole food enzymes every day. Cancer people could

use three capsules 3x/day. ! (1 800 572 6204) When it comes to blood

detox, the enzymes issue is fundamental for any expectation of

success.

 

 

3. COLON DETOX/FLORA

 

Colon detox is a complete story in itself for which the reader is

directed to the chapter on the Colon (www.thedoctorwithin.com). The

bottom line is that autointoxication can be the initial cause and

promoter of any emerging neoplasm. To disrupt the process, an herbal

colon cleanse must be undertaken. The simplest and most effective

program I have found is an herbal blend called Experience: 2-8 caps

per day, with a ton of water.

 

Flora

 

Now that you're eating all this food, you must keep your intestinal

good bacteria levels up. You'll remember that the intestine requires

friendly flora, such as Acidophilus, to help with complete

digestion. Flora may be thought of as the Second Immune System.

Infinity has a product called Total Flora which introduces twelve

friendly bacteria into the digestive tract. If you're gonna stay

healthy, you need it. The main contributors to killing off your

friendly bacteria have been antibiotics, antiinflammatories (Motrin,

Tylenol, Advil, etc.), secondary antibiotics (the ones they gave the

animals we eat), alcohol, coffee, drugs, and refined foods. Chronic

bad digestion promotes not only cancer, but also allergies,

arthritis, and chronic fatigue.

 

4. VITAMIN/MINERAL COMPLEX

 

These are necessary for your cells and tissues to work good. I'll

spare you the details if you promise to read the chapter Ascorbic

Acid is Not Vitamin C (www.thedoctorwithin.com) and also the one on

minerals. Skipping over vitamin and minerals would be like changing

your car's oil and leaving the old oil filter in. Come to think of

it, you probably have been skipping this step all your life and

that's one of the main reasons you're in the shape you're in. Not

really your fault. We've known since 1938, when Senate Document 264

came out, that food grown in America was no longer very good. Forget

mega-vitamins - we only need small amounts, but the vitamins can't

be fractionated: they have to be whole food. If you still think

ascorbic acid is Vitamin C, time to do some research. Start with the

chapter Natural vs. Synthetic. Again, some of the cleanest whole

food vitamins and most effective minerals are offered by a little

company in Arizona called Infinity. Specifically, the products are

Insure Plus and Infitrim. Also many green drinks are replete with

whole food vitamins and natural antioxidants.

 

Live, raw foods are also an obvious source of whole food vitamins

and naturally occurring minerals, especially the green foods like

wheat grass, barley, spirulina, and chlorella. The green drinks like

Best of Greens are loaded with these components.

 

Some people are debilitated and can't keep much down. In such cases

it is important that what is taken in be as nutrient dense as

possible. Many patients in this situation sip these sugary little

canned drinks from the grocery store, which actually is something

cancer thrives on. You know the ones I mean.

 

Some of the most nutrient dense meal replacement products include

Infitrim and Definition. Originally designed as weight loss

products, it was then found that overall health and well-being were

boosted if the body receives a clean source of fats, ,protein, and

carbohydrates, in addition to enzymes, whole food vitamins, and

chelated minerals on a daily basis.

 

For colds, flu, and infectious diseases, it is best to eat almost

nothing, according to classical experts like JH Tilden MD. But for

chronic terminal illnesses, the only hope of recovery lies in the

possibility of shoring up the healthy areas and systems of the body

so that the body itself can win the battle. Despite all the claims

you've heard, there is no Magic Bullet out there, either drug or

supplement, which can isolate that bad cancer cells and kill them

while leaving the good s cells alone. According to most of the

medical authorities cited hereinunder, cancer can only be overcome

by the healing systems of the body itself. It's an inside job.

 

5. OXYGEN

 

Cancer loves sugar. Especially partially digested white sugar, which

is called fermentation. The reason is oxygen. Carbohydrates, or

sugars, use up oxygen when they ferment, as any bootlegger can tell

you. That's what the bubbles are. This oxygen-deprived environment

is perfect for cancer - it thrives in it. Fermentation creates an

acidic environment and keeps oxygen away.

 

A diet of meat and dairy and carbonated drinks is acid-producing.

Infinity's ClO2, as well as drinking alkaline water, can help to

neutralize an acidic environment. Infinity's Lipochromizyme is an

important product for digesting sugars because of its chelated

chromium. Chromium, in which 91% of Americans are deficient, is

essential to activate the body's insulin.

 

Again, an enzyme program will free up the red blood cells, so that

they may actually carry out their #1 function – to carry oxygen to

all cells of the body.

 

6. COLLAGEN

 

This is the newest discovery, for me at least. Muscle wasting

(cachexia): muscles turn into loose string. Ever see that in a

cancer patient? Bone degeneration. Shriveling skin. All these are

made of collagen. Even for non-cancer people, collagen production

diminishes as we age. With cancer, the depletion is more obvious

because the body is digesting itself to feed the cancer. Worse yet,

chemotherapy immediately attacks the digestive system, which is why

the patient loses his appetite.

 

If the patient is to survive, collagen supplementation is critical.

Not shark cartilage or Knox gelatin, but something already

assimilable, something that doesn't need to be broken down first,

using up the body's dwindling mineral reserves in the process. The

best example is Calorad: collagen hydrolysat. It's clean, it's

simple, and it's a food. Please see the chapter on collagen.

 

7. WATER

 

If you do none of the above, at least give your body the benefit of

hydration: minimum of 2 liters of water per day. No tap water! You

can't drink that much? Poor baby! How will you enjoy being dead?

Where did you read that healing yourself from a serious illness was

going to be convenient? The vast majority of Americans are

dehydrated. Any type of blood detox or healing regimen cannot

succeed unless the cells are fully hydrated. Start with one liter

and work up to two. For details, please read the chapter on WATER -

(www.thedoctorwithin.com)

 

 

LAST CALL - PLACE YER BETS

 

So that's it. That's the best program I know of for someone in your

shoes. I've looked. There are probably many other worthwhile

methods, like beta glucans, immunocal, 714x, Haelan, MGN-3, the

Kelley method, live foods, and ozone, to name just a few. My goal is

simplification and streamlining - no one could handle taking all the

holistic remedies at one time. The total amount of data in this

field is overwhelming, especially to someone who is anxious to get

started on some kind of rational natural healing program. Some

information has come my way in the past few years that I would've

missed except that I was forced to look at it when I lost several

people close to me. I'm not saying this is the only program that

will be effective. In the past 75 years there have been several

dozen holistic, non-medical cures for cancer that demonstrated high

rates of success, as cited by Moss, Morris Bealle, John Robbins, and

Richard Walters. Many of them were openly attacked by the vested

medical interests together with their FDA guard dog. Some of these

pioneers have been persecuted, jailed, deported, and even killed

when their only crime was discovering and using an inexpensive,

effective anti-cancer agent and trying to tell people about it. They

were healers. Most of us have never heard their names, unless we've

done the research.

 

There are many clinics in Mexico and a host of low profile

alternative therapies used in Europe as well as here in the U.S.

Statistically, some studies say that overall survival rates are

about the same whether the patient chooses traditional or

alternative treatment programs. I don't know if I believe that. The

quality of life, however, is generally better with the alternative

route, it appears to me. In addition, the incidence of real

recoveries seems to be somewhat higher with the alternative

approach. And that stands to reason, since holistic methods try to

boost the immune system instead of killing it with poisonous drugs.

Moreover, the holistically-inclined patient may be more self-reliant

and more willing to take personal responsibility and initiative for

healing, rather than just to sit back and expect the " magic of

modern technology " to do all the work with the expectation that the

patient can continue his ongoing program of self-abuse, a passive

spectator in the return to health. A famous healer once remarked

that there's a big difference between being afraid to die and

wanting to live.

 

ALONE AGAIN, NATURALLY

 

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in embarking on a holistic program

for cancer is not the discipline required by the program itself.

Neither is it the time it required, the money involved, or the

newness of the lifestyle. The biggest obstacle is the solitude of it

all - you'll be swimming upstream, by yourself. Chances are you will

not get support from your family doctor, any medical professionals,

or your family. Chances are you will be attacked by any of the above

for not following mainstream slash-and-burn protocols. I have seen

many patients who were initially open to the holistic approach

buckle under pressure from the family to be " sensible " and follow

the tried and true. Invariably, they died on schedule, because they

didn't want to " upset anybody. " This is one time in your life that

it's OK to upset people, the one time that's it's fine to be

completely selfish. You have a right to your own life, no matter how

politically incorrect that notion becomes. If you actually do the

research beginning with the appended references, it is virtually

impossible not to arrive at a similar conclusion: that mainstream

cancer treatment is rarely effective and exists primarily for the

benefit of the cancer industry itself, not you. If you go along with

their program, it is likely that at some point you will learn the

truth of this reality. For most, that point comes too late.

 

If you suspect there may be some validity to what I'm saying, you

owe it to yourself to investigate it thoroughly on your own before

you submit to even the mildest of chemotherapies. I promise, you

will be no match for the masterful stairstepping of procedures and

testing that awaits you, dangling little improvements with

enticements to try this or that drug because " It's really not that

toxic " or the standard " now this won't cure your cancer, but it will

slow it down, " or the Oscar-winning " it's OK to take some of your

herbs or natural products along with the

chemotherapy/radiation/surgery. They won't interfere. " Oncologists

are getting increasingly sophisticated at tricking the frightened,

uninformed patient and his family into accepting the standard

worthless drugs and surgical procedures. One of the newest ploys is

telling the patient that " we have something special for you, an

experimental drug, just developed. " This one is used with patients

who are beginning to question the toxicity of chemo and need a

little extra hope. Then they find out later that the drug was not

new at all, but was one of the standard poisons, like methyltrexate,

that has been around for the past 25 years. By then it's too late,

because the patient is so debilitated he'll do anything the doctor

says.

 

Once you start on chemotherapy, it's almost always downhill from

there on afterwards. You won't even notice your immune system and

your vitality ebbing, leaving you weaker, day by day, until

some " crisis " hospitalizes you. At that point, you're fair game.

Bye, bye.

 

If the reader agrees with nothing I have said so far, but has less

than 100% confidence in the hospital's ability to cure your cancer,

get behind this: follow none of my recommendations. Do nothing: no

doctors, no treatment, mainstream or holistic. Go home and live your

life. For the majority of cancers, no one can tell you with any

authority that you are doing anything " high risk. " To the contrary,

doctors have known since 1975 that survival rate with no treatment

at all is higher than survival rates with standard chemo/radiation/

surgery. (Lancet, 1975)

 

There are also no real statistics comparing the effectiveness of

mainstream with holistic alternatives. And we know that mainstream

treatment usually doesn't cure the patient, and worse that the

patient's last weeks on earth are often filled with horrific side

effects of ineffective treatment. But many people are saying OK,

I've got cancer, and statistically I may not survive; so be it. If I

die of the cancer, that's all right; I'm just not going to die of

the side effects of ineffective poisons.

 

Holistic methods focus on working with the body and boosting

whatever immune system the patient still has. Chemotherapy and

radiation by contrast, usually devastate the immune system at the

one time in you life that you need it the most. Larraine Day tells

us:

 

 

" Cancer is a disease of the immune system. It's caused by a depressed

immune system. How can it possibly be cured by a therapy that

further

damages the immune system? "

- Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More

 

 

CANCER: CAUSE AND CURE

 

We've been bad. Bad humans. We've polluted our sacred bloodstreams

with a thousand chemicals, seen and unseen, which destroy life.

Vaccines, processed foods, prescription drugs, over-the-counter

medications, coffee, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, air pollution,

fluoridated water, pesticides, chlorine and hundreds of other

contaminants in our water, MTBEs in our gasoline - what are we

doing? Looking for a cure for cancer - who are we kidding? A cure

for cancer that will enable us to continue defiling our blood with

all the above substances, right? A cure for cancer that will take

all responsibility off the individual - the old 'I'd rather not

participate in my own recovery, if you don't mind, thank you very

much. just lather me with the good stuff...' Mostly it's our brains

that have been polluted and systematically de-evolutionized to allow

us to accept such a sad state of existence as the only life we will

ever know. Cure for cancer? Step one: stop poisoning your blood!

 

LAST CHANCE

 

You just found out you got cancer and want to go holistic? Fine.

You've got one chance. Go for it 100% - diet detox, supplements,

major cardio exercise, eliminate all negative input. Starting this

minute. Think that'll be overkill? Well, it might. Problem is, you

might already be slipping inexorably toward cocktails with Elvis.

 

Don't want to blow sunshine up your afterburner - even with your

best efforts at detox, it may not be enough – no pretending in that

department. Cancer is a serious health problem, generally resulting

from years of abuse. No matter what you do now, statistically you

might die. But following a rational holistic plan may certainly give

you your best shot at quality of life. So it's a race – you work to

build your cellular reserves; cancer works to destroy them. Winner

takes all.

 

Don't want to inconvenience yourself? Fine. Forget the whole thing -

just write your will and party out. Because if you got cancer in the

first place, it's likely you've been overdrawn in the vitality

department for a long time. Your only chance is to sprint from

morning to night, doing every single thing possible to detox your

blood, bring more oxygen to the cells, boost your immune system, and

generally try and make up for all those years of self-abuse. Don't

have the energy? No problema - see ya next time around.

 

Following the above program will offer support for the immune

system. It is not easy and there's certainly no guarantee. It takes

total dedication, focus, energy, and money. Also being lucky enough

or persistent enough to find out exactly which of the dozens of

holistic supplements will work for your particular problem. The

above suggestions hopefully will provide a starting point. Thousands

of people have actually recovered, by using various remedies. Maybe

you'll be one of them.

 

In his master work, Quantum Healing,, Deepak Chopra says that

remissions of cancer in " terminal " patients have one thing in

common: a major shift in attitude or consciousness.

 

Don't be disconsolate when you find out that there are many avenues

of holistic therapeutics. Trying to do all of them together would

probably be enough to kill a horse, even though they're natural

approaches. Choose one or two that make the most sense to you, that

you have access to, and whose representatives give you a feeling of

confidence and trust. Then really try the method - do it the exact

way the experts tell you, with consistency, focus, and follow-

through. Since you're a patient, be patient. Don't just give it your

best shot; do whatever it takes - 150%. And daily visualize

wholeness and completeness of your entire body. Do the deed.

 

What have you got to lose?

 

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.html?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...