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:
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 till 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:
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:
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.
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.