1. health and fitness
2. disease
3. cancer

Overcoming Cancer
Conventional medicine’s approach to cancer prevention and treatment is a debilitating, and deadly fraud. The
physicians who perpetrate this fraud must bear some responsibility, but the problem runs much deeper than individual
doctors. The underlying issue is that the entire cancer treatment “industry” has been following a faulty paradigm
for close to a hundred years.
A paradigm is a belief system. The paradigm that is the basis for cancer prevention and treatment today is wrong. That
paradigm of “purging the body of cancer cells” was initiated back in the late 1800s by William Halsted, MD, who
performed the first radical mastectomies on women with breast cancer. There was no significant follow-up with these
patients to justify continuation of this procedure, but the presumption that cancerous cells must be cut out of the
body was accepted without question. It just made sense.
More than a century later, this concept still holds sway, and our primary treatment modalities–surgery, chemotherapy,
and radiation–are attempts to purge cancer from the body. This approach does a lot of damage. Toxicity aside, this
approach doesn’t work. Over the past hundred years, the death rate from cancer has hardly budged, and it will soon
be the number one cause of death. Yet the trillions of dollars vested in its prepetuation have created a powerful and
virulent force against change. Nevertheless, like all failed paradigms in human history, this one is coming to an end.
All cancer cells, whether they’re in the breast, prostate, pancreas, brain, or other organs, engage in undisciplined, rapid
cell division. This is the basic defect, and this is where cancer treatment should be focused. You don’t need to cut it out
or otherwise purge it. All you need to do is stop the cells from dividing, and the cancer will disappear.
The human body is capable of doing this. If you’re afflicted with cancer, you will be facing a number of decisions,
and it’s important that you make up your mind with thought and reason, not fear. The cancer can be cured–not improved, but cured. There are thousands of people who have been told they had no chance of survival, but their doctors
wre wrong. Cancer can be cured.
It’s a very brave choice to go against traditional medicine and embrace the alternative route. It’s easier to try the
traditional route and then if it fails, go to the alternatives, but often it can be too late.
What Cancer Really Is
One hundred years ago, 1 out of 33 people was diagnosed with cancer in his lifetime. Today, 1 person out of 3 will be diagnosed
with cancer in his lifetime, and that ratio continues to grow. Cancer is affecting more and more people and at ever-younger ages.
The malignant tumor mass that is commonly called cancer is in reality a symptom (or indication) of cancer. Cancer itself is the
malfunctioning process that causes tumor symptoms to appear. In other words, the malignant tumor is not “the cancer.” Similarly, smoke that comes from a fire is not “the fire”; it is a symptom or indication of a fire. Surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation
do not rid the body of cancer any more than eliminating smoke puts out a fire. It is one thing to address the symptom, and another
thing to address the cause, and more attention needs to be directed to the latter. With cancer, it is not enough to merely manage its
symptoms. It’s time for a fundamental change in how we think about this disease. A paradigm shift is in order.
More People Living off Cancer than Dying From Cancer
A 1998 edition of the Merck Manual indicates that a woman who has annual mammograms for ten years has a 50% chance of having
at least one biopsy, even if she never develops breast cancer. Joseph Mercola, MD, estimates that at $100 per mammogram times 62
million American women over age 40 added to $1000 per biopsy for one to two million women generates a hefty eight billion dollars
annually. What industry would want to deny their stockholders a share of this lucrative market?
The late Dr. John R. Lee, a great champion of natural solutions for women’s health problems, also recognized the huge profitability of
detecting and treating breast cancer, and described it as a growing industry generating billions of dollars. It starts with mammograms,
followed by biopsies, surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, and drugs, all of which create a substantial income stream for hospitals,
physicians, their support staff, corporations who make all the equipment, and especially, the pharmaceutical industry.
There is little financial incentive to halt the conveyor belt of profitable cancer treatment to look at real cancer causes and prevention.
The vested interest will not easily give up a lucrative business. If women want something different, they will have to demand it If
conventional medicine was sincere about preventing breast cancer, safer diagnostic procedures would be promoted in place of mammograms and be covered by insurance, and greater attention would be focused on environmental pollutants in our air, water, soil, and food.
The Western Medical profession has been lying to patients, telling them that when they have metastatic cancer, their only chance
of survival is a combination of chemotherapy and radiation. But they know that once cancer metastasizes, conventional treatment
won’t do anything.
Doctors secretly talk among themselves about palliation, meaning to treat partially but not be able to cure, and patients don’t know
what that means. But when they ask, their doctors say it means it will make them more comfortable without poisoning them. They
don’t tell them, “We’re not trying to cure you, because we can’t cure you.” If you ask the doctor to his face, “Can this cure me?” he
will have to say, “No, but I can make you more comfortable. This may give you an extra couple of months.”
Prevention is being ignored by practitioners everywhere. It is out of laziness but mostly ignorance. The problem with medical centers
is two things. One, the medical centers get most of their funding or large blocks of their funding from pharmaceutical companies,
and these companies produce all the major manufacturing of chemotherapeutic agents and other drugs used in cancer patients.
When you give tens of millions of dollars to universities such as Harvard, Yale, or Columbia or Duke, you’re not going to have physicians who are dependent on pharmaceutical money criticizing chemotherapy. They’d lose their grants and the president of the
university will tell them, “We’re at risk of losing tens of millions of dollars.” If they continue, they risk being let go by the university.
Researchers and doctors in big universities actually depend on these grants both from government and from the private institutions for their survival. Guess who gives the grants? The pharmaceutical companies! Guess who controls the grants the government
gives? The pharmaceutical companies! So both the government and the pharmaceutical companies are making billions of dollars
off the improper treatment of cancers.
Medical Schooling
The medical student goes to medical school all excited because he’s told it’s the greatest medical school in the world, and then they start
teaching him about all the drugs. This student pays no attention to biochemistry—medical students hate biochemistry, think it’s a
waste of time. They can’t wait to start learning how to deal with drugs, radiation, diagnostic tests, and chemotherapy. Basic sciences are
just a lot of nonsense. The only basic science they know is how a drug works. As a result, our medical students are poorly educated
and they don’t even realize it. They are ignoring a mass of knowledge, which is truly unfortunate. We have huge knowledge of
plant extracts, flavonoids, vitamins, and minerals, and it is so extensive. The science is so well demonstrated, there’s just no excuse
for not using it in everyday treatment of cancer patients.
Critical Condition
150
A natural approach to cancer is where the cancer cell is incapable of overcoming that blockage, and that’s why it works so much better.
The cancer cells don’t develop resistance.
The way chemo is practiced in the United States is medieval. It is cookbook medicine. You must treat the person who has the
cancer, not the caner or tumor alone. It requires a systemic lifestyle change and detoxification.
As far as chemo working, it depends on your definition of working. For cancers that have already metastasized, which includes a great
number of cancer cases, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy is ineffective and there is growing evidence that it may actually
reduce survival times; that is, it is killing the patients earlier. Chemo can make a great number of cancers temporarily shrink, but
then the cancer becomes resistant to not only that particular cancer chemotherapy but also to all forms of chemotherapy—it’s
called multidrug resistance.
This makes the patient die faster, because the chemo damages their immune system as well as body resistance to cellular and organ
stress. Suppression of immunity, all agree, speeds the growth and invasion of all cancers. It gets rather involved, but new studies have
shown that chemo causes the tumors to shrink temporarily by killing the low-grade malignant cells and has no effect on the cells generating the cancer—the cancer stem cells. This is why when the cancer recurs it grows with a vengeance.
Multidrug resistance is one of the big secrets in oncology. Multidrug resistance happens when you give chemotherapeutic agents
to a patient and a greater number of the cancer cells will become resistant to the chemotherapy, meaning it won’t work even the least
bit. And once it develops this multidrug resistance, it resists every chemotherapeutic agent from then on. This means the cancer
is not only not sensitive to the agent, but also it grows much faster because these chemotherapeutic agents produce enormous inflammation and free radical generation in the entire body, which is what stimulates the growth of cancer. It makes the cancer invade
a lot more and metastasize, and shortens the patient’s life span.
A number of natural supplements will reverse multidrug resistors. For instance, indol-3-carbinol, found in broccoli. And as mentioned, curcumin and flavonoids. It is also important to emphasize again that a great number of studies reported in prestigious journals
demonstrate that flavonoids, as well as special vitamin-mineral mixtures, can powerfully suppress cancer development, growth, and
invasion of a great number of cancers. There is compelling evidence that a nutritional approach to post-op treatment of breast
cancer far exceeds in safety and effectiveness any regimen of chemotherapy and/or radiation treatments.
Curcumin, a component of turmeric, is one of the most powerful cancer inhibitors. It’s enormously powerful, and it’s even more
powerful when you combine it with these other things, because you have synergistic and additive power to control cells. This is the
difference between nutrition and chemotherapy. Chemotherapy targets one or two enzymes in the cancer cells or a process in the cancer
cells. The cancer adapts quickly and bypasses that blockage and goes on growing. Flavonoids and other plant-based nutritional
therapies attack twenty, thirty, fifty, a hundred different sites, where the chemotherapy might attack it at two sites.
There are people who have undergone chemo and radiation and still look well and healthy. In many cases of chemo following breast
cancer surgery, the cancer itself was of a very low malignancy, meaning that it has a low risk of metastasizing. It is the spread of a
cancer that kills. Many of these patients would have survived and done well even without chemo and post-op radiation.
There is a big controversy among cancer specialists concerning over-diagnosing breast and prostate cancers. The idea is that most breast
cancers are in situ cancers and would never develop into full-blown invasive cancers. Also, even in the case of some invasive cancers
we know that their ability to invade and kill over a very short period, while others, grow very slowly, are very slow to metastasize, and
can recur decades after they are declared “cured.”
It used to be thought that if patients survived five years without signs of recurrence of their tumors, they were cured forever. We now
know, especially for breast cancers, they are recurring after even ten years. They often develop lung cancer after the radiation treatments. Studies have also shown that cancer cells are found circulating in the blood of 50 percent of breast cancer survivors five years
after they are supposedly cured. So many women, declared free of cancer, are still at risk.
As for their appearance of being “well,” recent studies have shown that chemotherapy produces brain damage in a substantial number
of people undergoing it. This can manifest as depression, memory loss, and difficulty thinking clearly. They also suffer from fatigability and other systemic effects. We also know that the chemo damages the DNA in all cells of their bodies, especially those cells that
divide the fastest—such as bone marrow cells, cells lining the gut, and liver cells. What most oncologists never want to talk about
is that people taking chemo and/or radiation treatments are at an increased risk of a second malignancy not related to their first one.
Women who have post-op chemo are at risk of developing leukemia/lymphoma or even thyroid cancer, as well as a greater risk of
developing one of the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease. A woman on tamoxifen is at a much greater risk
of developing uterine cancer, and the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing breast cancer recurrence is in question, especially for
black women. There are a number of studies that show tamoxifen increases breast cancer risk in black women.
Cancer
151
So, while the women may seem to be “well,” after five years, it is still very early in their course of treatment, and later in their lives
they may pay a heavy price for the chemo and radiation treatments.
Shortcomings of Existing Cancer Data
We are living in a cancer epidemic in the U.S. But the U.S. does not have a national database on cancer incidence rates or mortality rates. The data for an analysis is primarily obtained from the SEER-9 (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) database of
the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The U.S. cancer mortality data are obtained by NCI from the Centers for Disease Control and
prevention (CDC), and are incorporated into the SEER database. The CDC has rates for the period 1979-2006 and they include actual
(referred to as crude in official statistics) and age-adjusted rates. Data on the U.S. population is obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States.
SEER provides cancer data in age-adjusted form. Those data are calculated numbers of incidence and mortality by holding constant
the age distribution of the U.S. population to that of a given year. Thus, an incidence rate of 200 for a particular year means that 200
people per 100,000 population were expected to have been diagnosed with the disease if the population of the U.S. was the same as
the reference year.
There is a number shortcomings with the existing official cancer data on the incidence and mortality rates. (1) SEER-9 reports
only age-adjusted data and not actual/crude data. However, crude mortality rates from CDC show a different picture than age-adjusted
rates. (2) The age-adjusted mortality rates of SEER-9 are lower than the age-adjusted rates of CDC. (3) Mortality statistics are not
adjusted by CDC and SEER-9 for possible mistakes/updates. (4) Implications of age-adjusted cancer rates; and (5) Delays in the
reporting of cancer incidence counts.
The incidence rate of cancer in 2006 was substantially higher than in 1975. In 1975, 400 people per 100,000 of population were
afflicted with cancer; and in 2006–31 years later–the cancer incidence had worsened significantly to 456 people being afflicted per
100,000 population. From 1975 to 1992, the cancer incidence rate jumped from 400 to 510 per 100,000. After 1992, the cancer incidence rate jumped from 400 to 510 per 100,000. After 1992, the incidence rate declined somewhat; however, in 2006, that rate was
still significantly higher than in 1975.
In 1975, 864,756 Americans were diagnosed with cancer. This number continued to climb rapidly and reached over a million
(1,010,097) by 1983–less than 10 years after 1975. The total number of people getting cancer continued to increase; by 2002, the number
reached a formidable 1,391,060. The numbers in 2001 and 2002 were the highest annual numbers during the period of analysis.
Over the period of analysis (1975-2006), the incidence rate of cancer increased at an annual rate of 0.4%. The cancer incidence rate
is the ratio of the number of people who are diagnosed with cancer to the population of the U.S. (per 100,000 persons). Consequently,
a positive growth-rate means that the number of people diagnosed with cancer every year (the numerator) grew faster than the
population of the country. In addition, the total number of people in the U.S. who were afflicted with cancer also rose annually
at 1.5%. During this time period, the population of the country grew at an annual rate of 1.1%. Thus, the total number of Americans
afflicted by cancer, over 1975-2006, climbed faster than the U.S. population. This is a crucial point. If the cancer program had
been effective, there would have been a drop in the growth rate–that is, it would have been negative. Instead, the opposite happened.
Cancer Mortality
Of those who are diagnosed with cancer, a significant number succumb to the disease and die–often with considerable suffering. For
every year following 1975, the number of Americans dying from cancer rose annually until 2000. If the cancer treatment program
of the U.S. had been successful, there would have been declines in the cancer mortality rate after 1975 instead of increases. This
indicates an inefficiency in the treatment of cancer patients.
From 1992, the mortality rate began to decline somewhat. However, it was still higher than in 1975. This continued until 2000, when
the mortality rate reached 199 (rate rounded). It was only after 2000 that the age-adjusted mortality rate fell below what it was in 1975.
If one compares the rate in 1975 with that in 2006, the result is a decrease of 9% for the entire 32-year period. This trranslates into
a miniscule 0.28% annual rate of decrease.
The numbers of Americans who died from cancer in 1975 was 430,002. By 1985, the number had surpassed 500,000 people per year
and by 2000 had reached the highest level at over 561,099. The number in 2006 is estimated at 541,065. These numbers also tell a
story of failure.
A disturbing finding is that a much higher number of Americans lost their lives to cancer in 2006–541,065–than in 1975–430,002 people.
The total number of Americans who died from cancer, over 1975-2006, was close to 17 million; that is 6.5% of the average
population of the U.S. over the period. The number of Americans who have been losing their lives to cancer, during the 1990s and
2000s, reached over 1500 people a day–the count of a World Trade Center building implosion (9-11) incident. That number translates
Critical Condition
152
into 63 Americans dying from cancer every hour of the day–or 1 American dying from cancer every minute. These are indeed
grim statistics showing the terrible outcome from the failure of the U.S. cancer program.
The current approach to cancer is an absolute failure. For most of the cancers that are a real concern to the world, the present
“official” treatments are virtually ineffective. For leukemia, they have had real success, and also with some bone cancers. But if
you look at the major cancers, the real killers—like lung, breast, prostate—they’ve made no significant inroads in reducing
mortality. Plus, they are over-diagnosing cancers, meaning they are diagnosing a lot of cancers that never would have spread in
the first place because they are very slow-moving and invading.
For instance, DCIS (ductile carcinoma in situ) breast cancer—in most cases this never metastasizes, never invades. And if you didn’t
know you had it, you could just go on living a normal life span. Mastectomies, for the vast majority, have been unnecessary for those
women who have had DCIS. This is a big discussion topic among oncologists. You see it in their journals. They are over-diagnosing
both prostate and breast cancers because they know if you look at a woman age fifty, about 40 to 45 percent of them will have breast
cancer cells in their ducts. Most of them will never get breast cancer, or at least it won’t spread.
The same thing is true with male prostate cancer. If you look at the majority of men age seventy, almost 70 percent of them have
prostate cancer cells. If you don’t look, far fewer than that will ever develop prostate cancer, maybe 2 or 3 percent, and these
won’t be aggressive prostate cancers.
If we didn’t go through all this aggressive diagnosis of cancer, we would never have known these cancers existed, and the
cancer rate would be much lower. By over-diagnosing, they improve their statistics. It makes it look like the war on cancer has
made headway, when in truth they haven’t made any headway. And then these poor patients go through all this hell, when, in fact,
they had a prostate cancer that never would have escaped the prostate gland and never caused any problems. But now they’ve gone
through this horrible surgery, radiation, ruined their bowel, ruined their bladder, and they have complications associated with it. All
for a cancer that never would have caused them any problems.
Part of the problem is that they are making a lot of money. Once these things get popular as diagnostic tests—like mammograms,
for instance, which all the hospitals use—and you’ve got doctors who specialize in this technology, then all these things become big
moneymakers. And then it feeds on itself.
The problem is that treating cancer has gotten to be such a big business. If we found the cure to cancer, there would be a terrible
economic impact. Hospitals would have to get rid of all their mammogram units; they would get rid of a lot of the CT scanners and
MRI scanners. Oncologists would be out of their jobs; radiology units would close. The impact would be hundreds and hundreds
of billions of dollars. The pharmaceutical companies would lose major revenues. The impact would be enormous, and that is what
keeps research from following a course that would lead to truly curing patients.
Cancer Is Not A Disease
Consider the possibility that cancer and other debilitating illnesses are not actual diseases, but desperate and final attempts by the
body to stay alive for as long as circumstances permit. A person who is afflicted with the main causes of cancer (which constitute the
real illness) would most likely die quickly unless he actually grew cancer cells.
Cancer will only occur after all other defense or healing mechanisms in the body have failed. In extreme circumstances, exposure
to large amounts of cancer-producing agents (carcinogens) can bring about a collapse of the body’s defenses within several weeks or
months and allow for rapid and aggressive growth of a cancerous tumor. Usually, though, it takes many years, or even decades, for
these so-called “malignant” tumors to form.
Unfortunately, basic misconceptions or complete lack of knowledge about the reasons behind tumor growth, have turned “malignant”
tumors into vicious monsters that have no other purpose but to kill us in retaliation for our sins or abusing the body. However, cancer
is on our side, not against us. Unless we change our perception of what cancer really is, it will continue to resist treatment, particularly the most “advanced” methods. If you have cancer, and cancer is indeed part of the body’s complex survival responses and not a
disease, you must find answers to the following pressing questions:
* What reasons coerce your body into developing cancer cells?
* Once you have identified these reasons, will you be able to change them? What determines the type and severity of cancer with
which you are afflicted?
* If cancer is a survival mechanism, what needs to be done to prevent the body from taking recourse to such drastic defense measures?
* Since the body’s original genetic design always favors the preservation of life and protection against adversities of any kind, why
would the body permit self-destruction?
* Why do almost all cancers disappear by themselves, without medical intervention?
* Do radiation, chemotherapy and surgery actually cure cancer, or do cancer survivors heal due to other reasons, despite these
radical, side-effect-loaded treatments?
153
* What roles do fear, frustration, low self-worth and repressed anger play in the origination and outcome of cancer?
* What is the spiritual growth lesson behind cancer?
Cancer
To deal with the root causes of cancer, you must find satisfying and practical answers to the above questions. If you feel the
inner urge to make sense of this life-changing event, (cancer), you most likely will recover from it. Cancer can be your greatest opportunity to help restore balance to all aspects of your life, but it can also be the harbinger of severe trauma and suffering. Either
way you are always in control of your body.
To live in a human body, you must have access to a certain amount of life-sustaining energy. You may either use this inherent energy in
a nourishing and self-sustaining or in a destructive and debilitating way. In case you consciously or unconsciously choose negligence
or self-abuse over loving attention and self-respect, your body will likely end up having to fight for its life.
Cancer is but one of the many ways the body tries to change the way you see and treat yourself, including your body. This inevitably brings up the subject of spiritual health, which plays at least as important a role in cancer as physical and emotional reasons do.
Cancer appears to be a highly confusing and unpredictable disorder. It seems to strike the very happy and the very sad, the rich and
the poor, the smokers and the non-smokers, the very healthy and the not so healthy. People from all backgrounds and occupations
can have cancer. However, if you dare look behind the mask of its physical symptoms, such as the type, appearance and behavior of
cancer cells, you will find that cancer is not as coincidental or unpredictable as it seems to be.
What makes 50% of the American population so prone to developing cancer, when the other half has no risk at all? Blaming the genes
for that is but an excuse to cover up ignorance of the real causes. Besides, any good genetic researcher would tell you that such a
belief is void of any logic and outright unscientific.
Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in industrialized nations during the past 40-50 years. Human genes have not
significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to kill scores of
people? The answer to this question is amazingly simple: Damaged or faulty genes do not kill anyone. Cancer does not kill a person
afflicted with it! What kills a cancer patient is not the tumor, but the numerous reasons behind cell mutation and tumor growth.
These root causes should be the focus of every cancer treatment, yet most oncologists typically ignore them. Constant conflicts,
guilt and shame, for example, can easily paralyze the body’s most basic functions, and lead to the growth of a cancerous tumor. There
is a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that is common to most persons with cancer. A cancer patient feels burdened by
some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional trauma that still lingers in his/her subconscious. Cancer,
the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration.
Cancer patients typically suffer from lack of self-respect or worthiness, and often have “unfinished business” in their life. Cancer
can actually be a way of revealing the source of such inner conflict. Furthermore, cancer can help them come to terms with such a
conflict, and even heal it altogether. The way to take out weeds is to pull them out along with their roots. This is how we must treat
cancer; otherwise, it may recur eventually.
The following statement is very important in the consideration of cancer: “Cancer does not cause a person to be sick; it is the
sickness of the person that causes the cancer.” To treat cancer successfully requires the patient to become whole again on all levels
of his body, mind and spirit. Once the cancer causes have been properly identified, it will become apparent what needs to be done to
achieve complete recovery.
It is a medical fact that every person has cancer cells in the body all the time. These cancer cells remain undetectable through standard
tests until they have multiplied to several billion. When doctors announce to their cancer patients that the treatments they prescribed
had successfully eliminated all cancer cells, they merely refer to tests that are able to identify the detectable number of cancerous cells.
Standard cancer treatments may lower the number of cancer cells to an undetectable level, but this certainly cannot eradicate all cancer
cells. As long as the causes of tumor growth remain intact, cancer may redevelop at any time and at any rate.
Curing cancer has little to do with getting rid of a group of detectable cancer cells. Treatments like chemotherapy and radiation
are certainly capable of poisoning or burning many cancer cells, but they also destroy healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal
tract, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc., which often leads to permanent irreparable damage of entire organs and systems in the body. A
real cure of cancer does not occur at the expense of destroying other vital parts of the body.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of people who were once “successfully” treated for cancer die from infections, heart attacks, liver
failure, kidney failure and other illnesses because the cancer treatments generate a massive amount of inflammation and destruction
in the organs and systems of the body. Of course, these causes of death are not being attributed to cancer. This statistical omission
makes it appear we are making progress in the war against cancer. However, many more people are dying from the treatment of
cancer than from cancer itself. A real cure for cancer is achievable only when the causes of excessive growth of cancer cells have
been removed or stopped.
Critical Condition
154
A lifetime accumulation of toxins stays in your body. This accumulation of toxic residues cause DNA damage. The older you get
the more DNA damage you get, and many of these toxins produce enormous numbers of free radicals, which damage DNA. As you
get older you have more trouble repairing your DNA, so if you are age seventy-five or eighty, your ability to repair DNA is just a
fraction of what it was when you were forty or even fifty. And that puts you at extremely high risk.
Aging is simply an acceleration of inflammation. By the time you’re in your sixties, the amount of inflammation in your body is
considerable. By the time you are seventy or eighty, it’s astronomical. This constant inflammation in the body is damaging your
DNA and setting the stage for cancer development. In one study, they looked at people who had cancer and found out that about 69
percent of them had identifiable chronic disease fifteen years or more before they developed their cancer. If you look at other studies,
70 to 75 percent had chronic inflammatory diseases before they developed their cancer. So the strongest link to cancer is chronic
inflammation.
Chemotherapy
Every year, approximately one million people, nearly four of five people with cancer, receive chemotherapy in this country. The
overall success rate of chemotherapy is no more than 2-3% and for some types of cancer it is virtually zero. It is well known that
chemotherapy kills practically everything it comes in contact with. The medical community is very aware of this but the hope is
that chemotherapy will kill the cancer before it kills the patient. If Chemotherapy is spilled on you, it will burn right through
your skin. That is why the people administering it where rubber gloves.
If Chemotherapy is spilled on the floor during administration, the people administering it have to put on a regulatory protective
suit before they can clean up such a spill. Chemotherapy kills white blood cells that are designed to defend our bodies from a host
of microorganisms, abnormal cells and foreign substances. We have cancer cells dividing in our bodies on a daily basis. However,
a properly functioning immune system has the ability to identify and destroy these threats to our health. If you have cancer now, you
can be sure that your immune system is impaired.
When chemotherapy kills your white blood cells it is a step by step destruction of an already compromised immune system, one
white blood cell at a time. Over 60% of cancer patients, who take chemotherapy, die from opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia, the common cold, etc. instead of the Cancer itself because they have no immune system left to fight anything. This destruction of
white blood cells is very much like what happens to immune compromised patients who are initially diagnosed as being HIV-positive.
Over time, the theoretic HIV virus destroys CD4 cells which are white blood cells called helper cells. These CD4 white blood cells
are our first line of defense against any foreign invader and protect us from many different types of diseases and ailments like
pneumonia, the common cold, the flu and on and on and on.
When an HIV patient’s CD4 count reaches 200, the patient is diagnosed as having AIDS. It is at this point when a person can become vulnerable to over 30 different types of diseases. Their immune system no longer has the ability to fight off these diseases that
normally would not cause them any problem. Chemotherapy also kills red blood cells. Red blood cells are your oxygen carriers.
All cancer patients have two things in common regardless of the type of cancer they have. They are highly acidic and anemic which
causes a myriad of health problems. Acid drives out oxygen and creates an anaerobic atmosphere that cancer & other degenerative diseases love and thrive in.
The reason, many cancer patients are anemic, is because acid drives out the oxygen found in a red blood cell. As that red blood
cell (full of oxygen) travels from the heart to the rest of the body, the amount of oxygen in that red blood cell can be diminished
depending on the acid atmosphere it is traveling through. Advanced cancer patients are usually 1000 times more acidic than
a healthy human being. This low oxygen atmosphere is the perfect breeding ground for cancer and may be the very reason why advanced cancer patients rarely recover. This acid environment, as well as other factors like chemotherapy, can cause a condition called
cachexia which causes the cancer patient to lose their appetite and stop eating.
It is documented that around 40% of cancer patients die from malnutrition as a result of this condition not the cancer itself. So,
if a cancer patient is already acidic and if acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that cancer loves, how
much sense does it make to take chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying red blood cells? That would create an
even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for cancer to wreak havoc. Cancer patients, for
the most part, are suffering through brutal chemotherapy regimens that have long ago proven themselves to be ineffective. Today,
chemotherapy remains the dominant mode of cancer treatment in the United States. Its use, often along with surgery and/or radiation,
has become almost routine.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) of the United States Government has stated in numerous reports that in spite of the increased
usage of chemotherapy by medical doctors and hospitals in the treatment of cancer that they cannot find any statistical data
that suggests it has any effectiveness in prolonging life. According to the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), the top 10 chemotherapy drugs used in the USA all list cancer as a side effect to using them. In fact, statistically, more cancer patients die from
chemotherapy treatment than of the cancer.
Cancer
155
Alan C. Nixon, Ph.D., wrote, “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore
the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” Over 75% of oncologists polled said that if
they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy they prescribe on themselves. Their reason? The ineffectiveness
of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity. In 1990, #3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy and by 1994 that figure
had more than double to $7.51 billion. Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? Even the Federal Government
has launched studies into this, suggesting possible corruption. Chemotherapy for children with leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease is the
proud showpiece of the arguably only apparent success of orthodox cancer therapy.
Now a long-term follow-up study shows that such children develop 18 times more secondary malignant tumors later in life. Even
worse, girls face a 75 times (7,500%) higher risk of breast cancer by the time they are forty. A main problem appears to be the
development of deep or systemic Candida albicans infections shortly after commencement of chemotherapy. If these infections are
not appropriately treated, then relapses or future health problems are likely to occur.
A study of ovarian cancer found that the risk of developing leukemia after treatment with chemotherapy increased 21-fold or
2,100%. Chemotherapy showed a clear dose-dependency whereby the incidence of triggered leukemia doubled between low-dose
and moderate-dose groups and then quadrupled between the moderate-dose and the high-dose groups. Also, other tumors commonly develop after treating malignancies with chemotherapy. In a trial for multiple myeloma, no advantage was found by using
chemotherapy as compared to no treatment.
The respected German biostatistician Ulrich Abel presented a comprehensive analysis of over 3,000 clinical trials on the value of
chemotherapy for advanced carcinoma (for instance breast cancer). (Oncologists tend to use chemotherapy because this may induce
a temporary shrinking of the tumor, called a response; however, it also tends to produce unpleasant side effects.) Abel concluded that
there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in these cases. Abel stated: “Many oncologists take it for granted
that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies.”
Ralph W. Moss, PhD, in Questioning Chemotherapy, provides a detailed analysis of this subject. The overall conclusion of the book
is that there is no evidence, in terms of the majority of cancers, that chemotherapy extends life. However, even if chemotherapy
could extend life for a few months, what about the quality of this life?
How Does Chemotherapy Work?
According to the National Cancer Institute, normal cells grow and die in a controlled way through a process called apoptosis. Cancer
cells keep dividing and forming more cells without a control mechanism. Anticancer drugs destroy cancer cells by stopping them
from growing or multiplying at one or more points in their growth cycle. Chemotherapy may consist of one or several cytotoxic drugs,
depending on the type of cancer being treated. The goal of chemotherapy is to shrink primary tumors, slow the tumor growth, and to
kill cancer cells that may have spread (metastasized) to other parts of the body from the original tumor. Chemotherapy kills both cancer
and healthy cells. The goal is to minimize damage to normal cells and to enhance the cytotoxic effect to cancer cells.
As the former Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center science writer and noted cancer author Ralph Moss, Ph.D., remembers, “Some
scientists recoiled at the horrendous toxicity...Patients were retching, their hair was falling out, and they were dying from drug-related
destruction of their bone marrow.” The 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s saw belief at an all time high for the chemotherapy community.
There was widespread belief that with enough money, researchers would eventually discover how to conquer the most common cancers,
the solid tumors. But as the years passed by, the “successes” remained isolated to a few comparatively rare forms of cancer. The
hoped-for breakthrough in the “war” against cancer was always “just around the corner,” and never materialized.
A look at the financial interrelationships between large cancer centers such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC),
considered the finest cancer research center in the world and the companies that make billions manufacturing and selling chemotherapy
drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is also a director of Bristol-Myers
Squib, the world’s largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb, vice-chairman of the MSKCC board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol-Myers’ president. Paul Marks M.D.,
MSKCC’s president and CEO, is a director of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. John S. Reed, also a chairman at MSKCC is also the director
of Philip Morris Tobacco Company, which has funded research and suggested results to be less damaging to the tobacco giant.
Tens of billions of dollars were spent on research, and hundreds of billions more on treatment, and yet there was no real improvement
in survival rates for the vast majority of cancers. For more than 90% of people with cancer, chemotherapy had next to nothing to
offer. The inescapable fact that researchers could never manage to circumvent was that the amount of chemotherapy necessary to
kill every last cancer cell in a human body is almost invariably lethal to the body itself. Eventually, the bad news began showing up in the scientific journals. In 1985, a professor of microbiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, John Cairns,
M.D., published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Bailar was held in extremely high regard in medical
circles, as he was the former editory of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and was now with the Department of Biostatistics
at the Harvard School of public Health.
Critical Condition
156
Simply looking long and hard at the data, Dr. Bailar said, had compelled him to lose faith in chemotherapy, and indeed in the entire war
on cancer: “Some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer has not had much overall effect on the
most fundamental measure of clinical outcome–death. Overall, the effort to control cancer has failed so far, to attain its objectives.”
In 1990, another ranking member of the cancer establishment Dr. Ulrich Abel, biostatistician at the Institute for Epidemiology and
Biometry at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, went a step further.
In the most comprehensive study ever undertaken of cancer chemotherapy, he stated: “A sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature has rarely revealed any therapeutic success... There is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these
drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life.” This notoriously toxic and expensive treatment, he said, was not
only rarely a cure, but in the vast majority of cases actually had no beneficial effect whatsoever on a patient’s outcome. Meanwhile,
the number of deaths due to cancer was continuing to rise.
In 1962, more than 275,000 Americans died of cancer. By 1995, the figure had doubled. The numbers showed a continual and significant increase even after biostatisticians made adjustments for the growth and aging of the population. By the year 2000, cancer
replaced heart disease as the leading killer of Americans. Rather than activating the body’s healing resources and supporting its
innate recuperative powers, chemotherapy virtually obliterates the body’s mechanisms for self-repair and renewal. Malignant
cells have a tendency to develop resistance to the assault of cytotoxic drugs.
It is extremely common, after an apparently successful treatment, for the cancer to reappear; and when it does, it frequently
comes back with a vengeance. Patients are told that the cancer has come back in spite of the aggressive medical care they have been
fortunate enough to receive. They don’t realize how often this happens to patients who undergo chemotherapy.
Once a relapse occurs, the chances of a second remission are remote. People with cancer always ask, “What are my chances?
What are my odds if I take chemotherapy?” In reply, doctors often speak encouragingly of “response rates” approaching 60-75%. The
patient is impressed, willing to undergo the ordeal, and grateful to be in the hands of high-tech modern medicine with its pharmaceutical wonders. The doctor talks response rate but the patient hears cure. Response rates simply do not predict survival or improved
quality of life. Tumor shrinking responses are the main yardstick in evaluating chemotherapy drugs. Doctors routinely and regularly
seek to bring about such “responses” implying that tumor shrinkage correlates with increased survival, and tell patients that this is a
most desirable goal in their treatment.
For many forms of cancer, including cancer of the breast (Stages III-IV), stomach, prostate, head and neck, bladder, and other sites, the
response rate to chemotherapy was found to be an impressive 75 percent. And yet, for these cancers, outcomes of disease-free survival
are almost nonexistent. Doctors studying cancer use a statistical measure called the five-year survival time. A person who survives
five years after initial detection of cancer is regarded as “cured.” However, this is a fallacy as many of these people subsequently die
of their cancer. Medical experts claim that early detection of cancer has saved lives as the five-year survival rates have increased. But
this is only because cancers are detected earlier–the sufferers do not actually live longer. The true result of screening programs is
that people are aware they have cancer for a longer period before they die.
Surgery and Cancer Metastasis
Surgery incites changes in the body that can stimulate metastasis. These changes include immune function suppression, increased
angiogenesis and cancer cell adhesion, and inflammation. “Since metastatic disease is often deadlier than the original tumor, it is
important to utilize preventive strategies to prevent cancer metastasis.
Surgery, for any reason, not just surgery for cancer, depresses the immune system. The type of anesthesia is one factor. General
anesthesia depresses NK cell activity, part of the body’s innate defense against cancer: NK cells locate and destroy cancer cells.
Regional anesthesia (which affects local areas instead of rendering patients unconscious) does not have the same depressive effect
on NK cells. Using regional anesthesia with a reduced amount of general anesthesia (or without general anesthesia altogether) keeps
NK cell activity from plummeting. In addition, surgery patients who forego general anesthesia are far less likely to require morphine
to control pain after surgery. Like general anesthesia, morphine depresses NK cell activity.
Certain nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals, taken before and after surgery, help mitigate negative effects of NK cell activity. PSK
(protein-bound polysaccharide K), extracted from the mushroom Coriolus versicolor, increases NK cell activity. Mistletoe extract also
lessens NK cell activity depression caused by general anesthesia. The nutraceuticals garlic, glutamine, IP6 (inositol hexaphosphate), and
AHCC (active hexose correlated compound) and the pharmaceuticals interferon-alpha and granulocye-macrophage colony-stimulating
factor also stimulate NK cell activity.
Beyond the effect of anesthesia, the actual surgery promotes metastasis in several ways. First, some large tumors secrete compounds
that keep secondary tumors from growing or forming. Removing these primary tumors gives the secondary tumors permission to
grow. In addition, cancer cells may be freed from the excised tumor during surgery and enter the bloodstream.
Cancer
157
Surgical incisions also stimulate the body’s healing response. Some aspects of the healing response, such as the production of blood
vessels (angiogenesis) and production of inflammatory proteins that increase cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) activity, encourage cancer
proliferation. Several nutritional and herbal supplements also inhibit COX-2, including curcumin (in turmeric), resveratrol (found in
red grape skins and made from Japanese knotweed), vitamin E, genistein (a soy isoflavone), epigallocatechin gallate (ECCG, found in
green tea), quercetin, fish oil, garlic, feverfew, and silymarin (milk thistle). Nutraceuticals like resveratrol, genistein, ECCG, and
curcumin also reduce angiogenesis.
Another effect of cancer surgery is an increase in cancer cell adhesion (ability to attach to one another and to body tissue). Modified
citrus pectin (MCP) is one nutraceutical that reduces cancer cell adhesion. MCP attaches to the galectin-3 adhesion molecules on a
cancer cell’s surface, which prevents the cell from attaching to other cancer cells. It is evident that the perioperative period harbors
many risks. However, it is also the ideal time for battling (minimal residual disease) to reduce recurrence and future metastases. Doctors
should make choices that lessen cell-mediated immunity suppression due to surgery. The use of appropriate nutraceuticals around
the time of surgery can bring great benefits with little risk to patients.
Power in the Word
Cancer is the second leading “cause” of death for Americans. According to the American Cancer Society, about 1.2 million cases will
be diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. in 2008. More than 552,000 Americans will die of it. Among men, the top three cancer diagnoses
are expected to be prostate cancer (180,400 cases), lung cancer (89,500 cases), and colorectal cancer (63,600). The leading types of
cancer among women are breast cancer (182,800 cases), lung cancer (74,600), and colorectal cancer (66,600 cases).
Cancer is not just a word, but also a statement that refers to abnormal or unusual behavior of cells in the body. If your doctor called you
into his office and told you that you had cancer, you would most likely feel paralyzed, numb, terrified, hopeless, or all of the above.
The word “cancer” has the potential to play a very disturbing and precarious role, one that is capable of delivering a death
sentence. Being a cancer patient seems to start with the diagnosis of cancer, although its causes may have been there for many years
prior to feeling ill. Within a brief moment, the word “cancer” can turn someone’s entire world upside down.
Who or what in this world has bestowed this simple word or statement with such great power that it can preside over life and death?
Or does it really? Could it actually be that our collective, social belief that cancer is a killer disease, in addition to the aggressive
treatments that follow diagnosis, are largely responsible for the current dramatic escalation of cancer in the Western hemisphere? Too far-fetched, you might say! However, cancer can have no power or control over us, unless we unconsciously allow it
to grow in response to the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, thoughts, feelings we have, and the life choices we make. Would we be
just as afraid of cancer if we knew what caused it or at least understood what its underlying purpose is? Unlikely so! If truth were told,
we would most probably do everything to remove the causes and, thereby, set the preconditions for the body to heal itself.
A little knowledge (which is what we call ignorance) is, in fact, a dangerous thing. Almost everyone, at least in the industrialized world,
knows that drinking water from a filthy pond or polluted lake can cause life-threatening diarrhea, but still only few realize that holding
on to resentment, anger and fear, or eating fast foods, chemical additives, and artificial sweeteners, is no less dangerous than
drinking polluted water; it may just take a little longer to kill a person than tiny amoeba can.
Mistaken Judgment
We all know that if the foundation of a house is strong, the house can easily withstand external challenges, such as a violent storm.
Cancer is merely an indication that there is something missing in our body and in life as a whole. Cancer shows that life as a whole
(physical, mental and spiritual) stands on shaky grounds and is quite fragile, to say the least. It would be foolish for a gardener to water
the withering leaves of a tree when he knows so well that the real problem is not where it appears to be, namely, on the symptomatic
level (of withered leaves). By watering the roots of the plant, he naturally attends to the causative level, and consequently, the
plant regenerates itself swiftly and automatically.
To the trained eye of a gardener, the symptom of withering leaves is not a dreadful disease. He recognizes that the dehydrated state
of these leaves is but a direct consequence of withdrawn nourishment that they need in order to sustain themselves and the
rest of the plant. Although this example from nature may appear to be a simplistic analogy, it offers a profound understanding of very
complex disease processes in the human body. It accurately describes one of the most powerful and fundamental principles controlling
all life forms on the planet.
However skilled we may have become in manipulating the functions of our body through the tools of allopathic medicine, this basic,
highly evolved principle of evolution cannot be suppressed or violated without paying the hefty price of side-effect-riddled suffering and pain–physically, emotionally and spiritually. Cancer is not a killer disease. Furthermore, cancer is not a disease at all.
Many people who received a “terminal” cancer sentence have actually defied the prognosis and experienced total remission.
Critical Condition
The Need for Answers
158
There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded
in healing his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a mechanism for creating cancer. Every person on the planet
has the capacity for both. If you have been diagnosed with cancer, you may not be able to change the diagnosis, but it is certainly in
your power to alter the destructive consequences that the diagnosis may have on you. The way you see the cancer and the steps you
take following the diagnosis are some of the most powerful determinants of your future wellness, or the lack of it.
The indiscriminate reference to “cancer” as being a killer disease by professionals and lay people alike has turned cancer into a disorder
with tragic consequences for the majority of today’s cancer patients and their families. Cancer has become synonymous to extraordinary
suffering, pain and death. This is true despite the fact that 90-95 percent of all cancers appear and disappear out of their own accord.
There is not a day that passes without the body making millions of cancer cells. Some people, under severe temporary stress make
more cancer cells than usual and form clusters of cancerous cells that disappear again once they feel better. Secretions of the DNA’s
anti-cancer drug, Interleukin II, drop under physical and mental duress, and increase again when relaxed and joyful. Thus, most cancers
vanish without any form of medical intervention and without causing any real harm.
Right at this moment, there are millions of people walking around with cancers in their body without having a clue that they
have them. Likewise, there are millions of people who heal their cancers without even knowing it. Overall, there are many more
spontaneous remissions of cancer than there are diagnosed and treated cancers. The truth is, relatively few cancers actually become
“terminal.” However, once diagnosed, the vast majority of all cancers are never even given a chance to disappear on their own.
They are promptly targeted with an arsenal of deadly weapons of cell destruction such as chemotherapy drugs, radiation and the surgical knife. The problem with cancer patients is that, terrified by the diagnosis, they submit their bodies to all these cut/burn/poison
procedures that, more likely than not, lead them to the day of final sentencing, “We have to tell you with our deepest regret there
is nothing more that can be done to help you.”
The most pressing question is not how advanced or dangerous a cancer is, but what we need to do to not end up dying from it. Why
do some people go through cancer as if it were the flu? Are they just lucky or is there a mechanism at work that triggers the healing?
In other words, what is that element that prevents the body from healing cancer naturally, or what is that hidden element that makes
cancer so dangerous, if it is dangerous at all?
The answers to all these queries lie with the response of the person who has the cancer, and not with the degree of “viciousness” or
advanced stage it appears to have progressed to. Do you believe that cancer is a disease? You will most likely answer with a “yes,” given
the ‘informed’ opinion that the medical industry and mass media have fed to the masses for many decades. Yet, the most pressing yet
rarely asked question remains: “Why do you think cancer is a disease?” You may say: “Because I know cancer kills people every day.”
I would question you further: “How do you know that it is the cancer that kills people?” You would probably argue that most people
who have cancer die, so obviously it must be the cancer that kills them. Besides, you may reason, all the expert doctors tell us so.
Another question, a rather strange one is: “How do you know for sure that you are the daughter/son of your father and not of another
man?” Is it because your mother told you so? What makes you think that your mother told you the truth? Probably because you believe
her; and you have no reason not to. After all, she is your mother, and mothers do not lie about these things. Or do they?
Although you will never really know that the person you believe to be your father is, in fact, your father, you have turned what
you subjectively believe into something that you just “know,” into an irrefutable truth. Although there is no scientific proof
whatsoever that cancer is a disease (versus a survival mechanism), most people will insist that it is a disease because this is what
they were told to believe. Yet their belief is only hearsay information based on other people’s opinions. These other people heard
it from someone else.
Eventually, the “truth” of cancer being a disease can be traced to some doctors who expressed their subjective feelings or beliefs about
what they observed and wrote about in some review articles or medical reports. Other doctors agreed with their opinion, and before
long, it became a “well-established” fact that cancer is a vicious illness that somehow gets hold of people in order to kill them. However, the truth of the matter may be quite different.
Wisdom of Cancer Cells
Cancer cells are not part of a malicious disease process. When cancer cells spread (metastasize) throughout the body, it is not their
purpose or goal to disrupt the body’s vital functions, infect healthy cells and obliterate their host (the body). Self-destruction is not the
theme of any cell unless, of course, it is old and worn-out and ready to be turned-over and replaced. Cancer cells, like all other cells,
know that if the body dies, they will die as well. Just because some people assume that cancer cells are there to destroy the body
does not mean cancer cells have such a purpose or ability.
Cancer
159
A cancerous tumor is neither the cause of progressive destruction nor does it actually lead to the death of the body. There is nothing in a
cancer cell that has even remotely the ability to kill anything. What eventually leads to the demise of an organ or the entire body is
the wasting away of cell tissue resulting from continued deprivation of nutrients and life force. The drastic reduction or shutdown
of vital nutrient supplies to the cells of an organ is not primarily a consequence of a cancerous tumor, but actually its biggest cause.
By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an anaerobic
surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their
primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most
ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular
metabolic waste products.
It may be easier to understand the cancer cells phenomenon when comparing it with the behavior of common microorganisms. Bacteria, for example, are divided into two main groups, aerobic and anaerobic, meaning, those that need to use oxygen and those that can
live without it. This is important to understand since we have more bacteria in our body than we have cells. Aerobic bacteria thrive in
an oxygenated environment. They are responsible for helping us with the digestion of food and manufacturing of important nutrients,
such as B-vitamins. Anaerobic bacteria, on the other hand, can appear and thrive in an environment where oxygen does not reach.
They break down waste materials, toxic deposits and dead, worn-out cells.
The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to
guarantee the much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading of the cancer cells.
It knows that cancer cells do not cause but, prevent death; at least for a while, until the wasting away of an organ leads to the demise
of the entire organism. If the trigger mechanisms for cancer (causal factors) are properly taken care of, such an outcome can
be avoided.
It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the
immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover
of 30 billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a
build-up of toxins, congestion and emotional stress.
Cancers and all other tissues in the body are larded with cancer-killing white cells, such as T-cells. In the case of kidney cancer
and melanomas, for example, white cells make up 50 per cent of the mass of the cancers. Since these T-cells easily recognize foreign
or mutated cell tissue such as cancer cells, you would expect these immune cells to attack cancer cells right away. However, the immune system allows cancer cells to recruit it to actually increase and spread the cancer to other parts of the body. Cancer cells produce
specific proteins that tell the immune cells to leave them alone and help them to grow.
Why would the immune system want to collaborate with cancer cells to make more or larger tumors? Because cancer is a survival
mechanism, not a disease. The body uses the cancer to keep deadly carcinogenic substances and caustic metabolic waste matter away
from the lymph and blood and, therefore, from the heart, brain and other vital organs. Killing off cancer cells would in fact jeopardize
its survival. Cleansing the body of accumulated toxins and waste products through the various cleansing methods removes the
need for cancer.
Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival mechanism the body has at its disposal. It only takes control of
the body when all other measures of self-preservation have failed. To truly heal cancer and what it represents in a person’s life we
must come to the understanding that the reason the body allows some of its cells to grow in abnormal ways is in its best interest and
not an indication that it is about to destroy itself. Cancer is a healing attempt by the body for the body. Blocking this healing attempt
can destroy the body. Supporting the body in its healing efforts can save it.
Not Fun
No matter how you perceive life and death, being a cancer patient is no picnic. Every year, over half-a-million Americans die of
cancer–the equivalent of three fully loaded jumbo jets crashing every day. This is despite the fact that record sums of money have
been spent on cancer research and treatment. Neither chemotherapy nor radiation can cure cancer. That’s admitted by the National
Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. In Fortune magazine, March 29, 2004, there was an article illustrating that survivability rates with people who have had metastatic cancer (where cancer spreads from the primary tumor to distant organs) has
not at all improved over the last 30 years.
That means that we’ve seen no improvement with the four major killers (breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer). Over 200 billion
dollars have been spent on cancer research. There have been 1.56 million published papers on cancer and 64 billion dollars spent
annually to treat people with cancer.
Critical Condition
160
The reports tell people that tumors don’t kill cancer patients; rather, metastatic illness kills cancer patients. Metastatic cancer
spreads to the liver, brain, bones or other vital organs. That’s what kills people with cancer. In order to contain metastasis, you have
to have immunity. A strong immune system is the only “drug” that works against cancer. By the time a tumor is discovered
there’s at least a billion malignancies in that tumor and they’re rapidly dividing—they’ve already “seeded” the rest of the
body by the time you’ve discovered you have cancer. In other words, you’ve got cancer seeds all over the body. What determines
the survival rate of cancer patients has to do with whether or not the immune system is still operating effectively.
You have to have raw materials to feed the immune system and you have to have components that modulate the immune system. Apparently, what’s going on is that there’s a communication breakdown among the cells. Cells communicate in an electromagnetic
realm or, rather, they emit photons (light particles). Environmental toxins can block the frequencies that the cells communicate
with. In other words, light is being emitted at a particular wavelength. Other cells are able to take that light as language and know
how to do what they need to do. It’s called photon repair. Scientists know it exists, they don’t understand how it works but they know
that’s what happens at the DNA level.
There are 100,000 biochemical processes that occur in every single cell, every second and we have about 100 trillion cells in the
body. What’s orchestrating this organized biochemical cellular delivery that controls bodily functions? What causes 100,000 biochemical reactions to occur in order every second? It’s communication. Cellular communication breaks down when the body is out of
balance (whether it’s cancer, autoimmune disorders or degenerative disease). The immune system also communicates cell-to-cell. The
cells identify an “invader” and order the immune system to turn on to create what is necessary to destroy the “enemy.”
Different cells communicate with other cells with this information. If the communication system has broken down, you have to find
ways to augment communication. That means you have to avoid things that are interfering with the communication (such as toxic
compounds like heavy metals: arsenic, mercury, lead, aluminum, fluoride, bromine). These are all interfering carcinogenic compounds
because they shut down communication and also interfere with the genes that are responsible for the cell correcting itself from having cancer. As we age we have fewer antioxidant defenses like glutathione, so we can’t defend ourselves against these free radicals
that are increased.
As we get older we have lower melatonin levels, and now it’s known that melatonin is an anticancer substance, not just for the
brain but for the entire body. So if your melatonin levels have decreased, you are at greater risk for cancer. Many people think that
melatonin is simply to sleep better.
One of the real biggies is as you get older you become severely depleted in vitamin D3, and if there was one vitamin that you were
going to choose that would be the most powerful cancer preventer and inhibitor of established cancers, it should be vitamin D3. The
elderly stay indoors; they’re cold most of the time, so they wear long sleeves. They avoid the sun, they wear hats. And so they begin
to get severely vitamin D3 deficient, which puts them at enormous risk of developing cancer—and some of the worst cancers, like
glioblastoma, which is a very malignant brain tumor. Studies found that if you gave people with this type of cancer large doses of
vitamin D3, they lived about five times longer than with even the best medical treatment they could get. So it has a powerful
influence, and unfortunately, the elderly are severely depleted.
Exposure to MSG is a powerful inducer of free radicals that last for a lifetime and have been connected to powerful stimulation of cancer growth. Glutamate receptors on tumors are now being shown to be a major stimulator of tumor invasion and spread.
The problem is that people eat a lot of omega-6 fats, which not only produce immune suppression but also are a major promoter of
inflammation. Americans consume about fifty times more omega-6 fats than they should for normal health, so they’re highly inflamed
just from their diets, and they have very low omega-3 fat intake, which reduces inflammation.
So, you look at all of those things combined for older people, it’s no wonder they’re at the highest risk of developing cancer, or higher
than anyone age forty.
Medical doctors tell people to stay out of the sun because they will get cancer, with no thought that when you lower vitamin D3, you
are dramatically increasing your cancer risk. Yet if they develop cancer, the cancer is more likely to go out of control because
they are vitamin D3 deficient. So if we develop a tumor but we are eating right and we’re avoiding bad oils and chemical food and
glutamates, it’s very likely that the tumor will just stay nicely tucked away. The one thing that’s known in oncology that the general
public doesn’t know is that tumors can change their characteristics based on these factors.
With good nutrition, a tumor will become very benign in its behavior. In labs, the animal will live much longer. But if you take
the same animal and give it a bad diet and toxins, the tumor will change its characteristics and become highly aggressive, highly
invasive, and kill the animal very quickly.
It is appalling that some of the biggest cancer centers in the world tell their patients to eat sugars: pies, cakes, even cheesecake and
birthday cake. They tell them this so that they don’t lose weight. All these things are filled with MSG and sugar.
Cancer
161
This is crazy, because cancer is fueled by sugar. It can’t use other things to grow as do other cells. If you take animals in a lab
with cancer and feed them sugar, they die sooner. They should be telling their patients not to eat sugar and aspartame, and to avoid
chemicals. They need to be on a sugar-free diet. No artificial sweeteners.
Detoxification is necessary to remove the toxins from the body. Treatments such as infra-red saunas, colon cleansing, chelation
therapy, chlorella, sodium alginate (from seaweeds), charcoal, bentonite clay, rebound exercise, skin brushing and cilantro are some
of the effective ways of removing these toxins. Eating lots of nutrient-dense, easily digestible foods is required as well as increasing
the consumption of fermented foods such as sauerkraut, kim chee, yoghurt and kefir.
If you ferment these foods, you add more value to it by increasing fermentation organisms such as lactic acid, which produce antipathogenic compounds such as : nicin, benzoic acid, lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and lactoperoxidase. Fermented foods have a
cleansing effect on the body and help digestion.
People are predisposed to cancer for a variety of reasons. For example, there are 55,000 new cases of lymphoma every year. Up to
50% of these new cases may be coming from polio vaccines contaminated with the simian virus 40 back in the 50s and 60s. And they
know that 43-45% of the lymphoma biopsies show the presence of simian virus 40. Conversely, none of the controls had the presence
of simian virus 40. Contaminated vaccines may also suppress the immune system and cause individuals to be susceptible to cancer.
There is also a strong connection between prostate cancer and the female cancers because pesticides act like estrogen. Pesticides are
estrogenic compounds. Estrogen related cancers (prostate, breast, ovarian) have a strong connection to pesticides.
Mammograms are not really that diagnostic and may be inducing breast cancer, particularly in highly sensitive women. But
so much money is being made, and so much money has been invested in these units in hospitals, that no one wants to admit the truth.
The defenders come out and say mammograms are the greatest thing ever, and other physicians say if we don’t have early diagnosis,
we don’t have anything. Why? They can’t cure it.
Chemotherapy is ineffective and radiation doesn’t work so well. So all they can talk about is early diagnosis. But the diagnostics
are not really that accurate, and they are causing a lot of women to have chemo and radiation for no reason at all. This is a big
topic of discussion in oncology journals, but the public never hears about it.
With the amount of radiation a woman receives with mammograms, if she started out at forty with no cancer, by the time she was
fifty she would have increased her chances for cancer by radiation exposure by 30 percent. The most conservative estimate is 1
percent per year. Another estimate is 3 percent per year. Some radiologists say it’s even higher than that. But there is also a subgroup
of women who have a strong family history of breast cancer, and their rates are infinitely higher than that.
The reason they have a high risk factor is that they can’t repair their DNA very well. They have BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations,
which is the gene that repairs DNA when it’s damaged by radiation. For these women, the same dosage of radiation given to women
without the BRCA gene causes much more damage. It’s probably equivalent to three, four, or five times the amount of radiation.
For women with BRCA1 and BRCA2, mammograms can induce a very aggressive cancer.
When you look at experimental studies with animals in which the researchers damage their DNA repair ability and radiate them, they
develop very deadly, aggressive cancers. And women have yearly mammograms innocently, trusting, unaware of any danger. They don’t
want to talk about it because they know that person should never have gotten a mammogram in the first place, and these are precisely
the women that are being told to get mammograms every six months. And women logically think that if they have a family history
they should be diligent about mammograms.
People don’t understand radiation biology and most doctors don’t understand radiation biology. But this is certainly known to
the radiation oncologists. Hematologic cancers are sensitive to radiation, like myelomas and some liver tumors that are rapidly growing. Any rapidly growing tumor is radiosensitive. But the problem is if they are rapidly growing they also metastasize earlier,
and they escape the radiation. The bad part is that the radiation is known to induce cancer, so then you worry if it is going to induce
cancer in some other tissue, and that is always a concern.
With pregnant women, just a couple of doses of pelvic X-ray will increase the risk of leukemia in their offspring dramatically,
because that baby has been exposed to the radiation. We know at certain critical periods of life we dramatically increase the chances of
cancer, and we known that a pregnant woman is much more sensitive to radiation effects than when not pregnant because progesterone
increases your radiation sensitivity.
The whole idea of smashing a woman’s breasts between the plates of the mammography machine can also be damaging. If a person has
a tumor—say a woman with a lump in her breast—you shouldn’t feel that lump except when you initially examine it, because every
time they squash it, the cells are pushed out into the lymphatic system and also the blood vessels, and you are more likely to
cause metastases. There is a real concern about this, but they never tell this to women.
Critical Condition
162
Another secret among oncologists that women don’t know is that some women who have fibrocystic disease in their breasts are told
that they need a mammogram once a year for sure. Problem is, when a breast is dense, you can’t see very well. So the radiologist tells
them the breast is too dense, and to make an accurate determination, they should return in six months. So they return in six months,
get another mammogram, and then they say the same thing.
They don’t tell you because of the fear of being sued for misdiagnosis of a cancer in a breast that cannot be read. But, if the breast
is that dense, why do it in the first place if you know you can’t read it? You’d feel it a lot sooner with palpation than you’d ever
see it on the radiograph. The other thing is that some women have small breasts. You can feel everything in a small breast. If you felt
a lump, then have it biopsied, then you would know for sure if it was cancer or not. And you wouldn’t get all that radiation and the
smashing of the breast. So, connecting the dots, in mainstream oncology, there’s no effective treatment for BRCA1 or BRCA2;
chemotherapy is not working, mammograms exacerbate potential cancers and give you a higher risk that you might create cancer
because of exposure. The best thing is to get screened with an MRI. That gives you a lot more as a diagnostic picture.
Now, they complain that the picture is so clear that they can make mistakes, but you are going to make mistakes on any kind of radiological or MRI scan. Thermography is also good, because we know tumors are hot and benign lesions tend to be cool.
Hormonal Cancer
There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless of how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded in healing his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a mechanism for creating cancer. Hormones replaced
in perfect ratios will prevent breast cancer and all other cancers, provided the person is compliant with good diet, stress management,
and detoxification.
Hormones are the backbone of health and quality of life. We have cancer-protective genes in our bodies, like light switches. As we
decline in hormonal production, these switches are turned off: by eating badly, by not managing stress, by consuming and living
with chemicals, and by the aging process itself. In order to reinstate these cancer-protective genes, we need to reinstate the hormones
to perfect balance. Then the brain perceives that all is well. If we are also following a healthy lifestyle, then the cancer in all of us
is kept at bay.
There are enormous cancer-protective components of hormone replacement. Not the synthetic, dangerous so-called hormones such as
Premarin, Provera, or Prempo. The Women’s Health Initiative in 2002 stopped an eight-year study at a little over five years, declaring that “it would be better for women to take nothing at all than to take these dangerous, harmful, and sometimes fatal hormones.” The report was speaking of synthetic hormones. So, as a result, women stopped taking their synthetic hormones. And guess
what happened? Breast cancer rates plummeted. Unfortunately women then started viewing hormones as the enemy, due to a lack of
understanding by mainstream medicine of the protective nature of real hormone replacement (bioidentical hormones). Unfortunately,
as a result of loss of hormones, many women began to experience a diminished quality of life: no sex drive, inability to sleep, weight
gain, bloating, body itches, mood swings, hot flashes, and memory loss. Women were expected to tough it out or take a myriad of
pharmaceutical drugs for depression, sleep, and anxiety. Men are offered Viagra for loss of libido, but nothing of a similar nature
exists for women. Guess it’s not considered important.
Fortunately, women do have an opportunity to regain their sexuality, and that answer comes from the replacement of bioidentical
hormones. Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT) is not only cancer protective, but also restores quality of life.
But today, without the protection of real hormone replacement, breast cancer rates are rising once again to frightening levels,
one out of every eight women. Scientific studies suggest that bioidentical progesterone and estriol offer protection against breast cancer, but no one has connected the dots. Synthetics were chemicals and the chemicals were responsible for raising breast cancer rates.
Correct bioidentical hormone replacement is protective against cancer. This type of hormone replacement is related to favorable
gene expression.
Men suffer from hormonal loss, too. They have the same cancer-protective switches that get turned off by the same lifestyle habits
and toxicity. With bioidentical hormone replacement, men can maintain their edge. They can protect their hearts and, best of all,
protect and prevent cancer, especially prostate cancer.
DHEA
DHEA has the broadest application against cancers of all sorts because DHEA is a key hormone in regulating an important enzyme
involved in the pathway that feeds energy to cancers. Cancer operates by anaerobic metabolism, meaning operating without oxygen.
The majority of metabolism in the human body is aerobic, with oxygen. Cancer operates with only anaerobic metabolism, meaning
the cancer cells cannot operate with oxygen. It actually kills the cells. There is one major pathway of anaerobic metabolism that
feeds energy to cancer cells (glycolysis), and they must rely on that pathway to survive. If that pathway is slowed down or choked
off or down-regulated, then a newly developing cancer can’t draw as much energy. More cancer cells die in the early stages on
their own because they don’t get enough energy.
Cancer
163
DHEA down-regulates that major pathway by its effect on the enzyme G6PD (glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase), which helps feed
anaerobic energy to cancer cells. Populations who genetically have weak G6PD have been found to have a lot less cancer. Because
this enzyme is weak in these people their pathway is automatically down-regulated because their bodies can’t produce as much energy
anaerobically, so cancer has a harder time even getting started, as well as a harder time growing if it does get started. So if we
keep our DHEA at healthy levels the pathway that can feed anaerobic energy to the cancer will not be as active, and more cancer will
die earlier. Almost all research proving this point has been done in animals, because it involves deliberately giving them carcinogens.
One study divided animals into two groups. One group had DHEA in their animal chow, and the other half did not. All the animals
were then given the same amount of carcinogen in the same exact dose. In the group that got DHEA, 15 percent or so got cancer.
That’s a significant percentage, but in the group that did not get DHEA, over 50 percent developed cancer. It’s very probable that
this down-regulation by DHEA of anaerobic energy fed to the cancer in the experimental animals is why they developed less cancer.
We can conclude from this that DHEA can reduce our risk of cancers by putting a brake on feeding them anaerobic energy, but
for best results it must be used in a cream form so it can be transported through skin or mucous membranes and delivered directly
into the bloodstream, and from there to each and every cell in the body without being changed first by our livers.
When we swallow DHEA (or any other natural steroid hormone such as estrogen or testosterone) it goes to the liver first, not the rest of
our body cells, and the liver’s basic job with steroid hormones is to alter them by conjugation with other molecules, like hanging
a baggage routing tag on them, mostly they are routed for disposal and excretion.
When we use DHEA in the cream form, only a little bit of DHEA is altered by the liver with every complete circulation of the blood,
so more DHEA molecules survive for our other cells—skin, muscle, bone, brain, all of them—to use them before they’re “thrown
away.” If we swallow estrogens—even bioidentical ones—they raise our risk of blood clots, affect our cholesterol levels adversely,
and even increase risk of certain cancers. If we rub them on, that doesn’t happen.
Estrogen can actually protect against breast cancer in many ways. In the 1960s, Professor Henry Lemon discovered a very interesting
thing: Women were more likely to be long-term breast cancer survivors after the surgical removal of their tumors if they had
more estriol in their urine specimens than estrone and estradiol. Conversely, if they had less estriol than estrone and estradiol,
they were much less likely to be long-term cancer survivors.
More estriol is made during pregnancy than at any other times of life. Women who make the most estriol during their pregnancies
produce the most estriol throughout their regular menstrual cycles. Women who have the highest amounts of estriol during their first
pregnancies have more than 50 percent fewer breast cancers during that time, and the women with the lowest amounts of estriol have
the most breast cancers during those approximately thirty-five years.
Estriol is key and we can measure it through urine testing. It is vitally important that estriol is replaced in the proper amounts for
cancer protection. Estriol by itself is a weak estrogen, but in the presence of another estrogen such as estradiol it becomes an
anti-carcinogen. For lower cancer risk, there needs to be the correct ratio of estriol to estradiol and estrone. You need to have more
estriol than the other two and then it becomes cancer protective.
While estradiol is the most potent estrogen, and it’s more responsible at puberty for most of the development of breasts and hips and
other nice things that help make ladies, it is also procarcinogenic. But in the presence of estriol, much of estradiol’s procarcinogenic
effect is blocked. Estriol does that with other estrogens also.
By occupying the estrogen receptor sites, not as much estradiol can get through. Some estradiol still gets through anyway, just
not as much. So if there is a lot of estriol—more estriol than estradiol and estrone, which is also a procarcinogen—it can do its job
and protect against cancer. But, if estriol is so important, then why did Wyeth filed a “citizen’s petition” with the FDA to stop the sale
of estriol by compounding pharmacies, and why was the FDA in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies, instrumental in trying
to make this happen?
Because horse estrogens or estrogens sold by patent medicine companies, including Wyeth, do not contain estriol. They want to
take away a big advantage of presently prescribed bioidentical estrogens—cancer-risk reduction with estriol—because then women
will buy the pharmaceutical products. When you have more estriol occupying the receptor sites than the procarcinogenic estrogens,
then they haven’t much of a chance of causing cancer. Women need to know this!
Iodine
Iodine stimulates the metabolism of estradiol and estrone into estriol. The outright cure for both fibrocystic breast disease as well
as raising estriol levels internally without taking estriol from the outside in nearly all cases is just using sufficient iodine or iodide.
It directly stimulates the formation of iodolipids—fats combined with iodine—in the breast. Iodolipids kill many types of breast
cancer cells. Iodine also promotes the formation of more estriol, which is protective against cancer formation in the first place.
Critical Condition
164
On the urine test report there are some more estrogens called 2-hydroxyestrogens and 16-hydroxyestrogens. If a premenopausal
woman’s body is producing more 2-hydroxyestrogens than 16-hydroxyestrogens, her breast cancer risk is less. But, if it’s the
other way around, her breast cancer risk is higher.
You can keep these two in balance by eating broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and other brassica vegetables.
They contain compounds that shunt the metabolism of estrone toward the 2-hydroxy, which is more anti-carcinogenic, and away from
the 16-hydroxy, which is pro-carcinogenic. Three or more servings a week will reduce breast cancer risk and, will also reduce prostate
cancer risk for men. If a man’s body is producing too much 16-hydroxy, he actually has a greater risk of prostate cancer also.
Indole-3-carbinol (I3C) and DIM, are actually very concentrated forms of the natural active ingredients in brassica vegetables. Some
physicians recommend that any woman using bioidentical hormones would automatically take DIM or indole-3-carbinol. It is possible
to take too much because too much of either will raise the 2/16 ratio too high—too much 2-hydroxy, or not enough 16-hydroxy. A
high ratio will increase risk of osteoporosis. This warning applies to supplementation. It would be almost impossible to eat too much
broccoli. Don’t take I3C or DIM without checking your 2/16 ratio; if it’s too high, research shows it raises your risk for osteoporosis.
You can tell if it’s too much by taking a specific 2/16 urine test, or the twenty-four-hour urine test, which gives much more information. Either test can spot if a woman is taking too much DIM or I3C. But if a woman is getting too little iodine or iodide for her body
to metabolize estrogen properly, it will show exactly the same pattern of estrogen metabolites. So, if the 2/16 ratio is too low, it’s
higher cancer risk, and if it’s too high, it’s osteoporosis risk.
Women have three “classical” estrogens plus many others and men have estrogens also. One of these other estrogens is 4-hydroxyestrogen. It is a very potent precursor of further metabolites that are very procarcinogenic. While the 2/16 hydroxyestrogens are evaluated
as a ratio, 4-hydroxyestrogen is evaluated by itself. The higher it goes, the greater the cancer risk. At present, 4-hydroxyestrogen
can only be evaluated on the twenty-four-hour urine test. If it is higher than desirable, you can work with your holistic practitioner
who understands how to alter estrogen metabolism safely with botanicals and other techniques to shunt your metabolism away from
4-hydroxyestrogen.
Another very important estrogen metabolite—again, only checkable at present with the twenty-four-hour urine test—is an exceptionally potent anticarcinogenic estrogen called 2-methoxyestrogen, which is totally natural and made in every woman’s body.
2-methoxyestradiol is cancer protective. Even some pancreatic cancers are showing improvement, and pancreatic cancer is one of
the toughest to treat. Some breast cancers are improving, as are prostate cancers, cervical cancers, endometrial cancers, lung cancers,
osteosarcomas, and other cancers.
Our bodies make 2-methoxyestradiol. Why not make more of our own, internally, and prevent problems as much as possible? It
takes much less of anything to prevent a problem, but much more of anything to treat a problem once it has occurred. 2-methoxyestradiol is a methylated estrogen. The enzyme that does the methylation is called COMT, (catechol-O-methyltransferase). It
transfers the methy groups to the estrogen and it comes out as 2-methoxyestrodiaol. This same enzyme, COMT, helps activate adrenaline when we are under stress by adding more methyl groups. If COMT is kept busy methylating adrenaline, it can’t methylate as
much estrogen, so our own internal production of 2-methoxyestradiol goes down. Since our own internal 2-methoxyestradiol helps
prevent cancer, this is one of the reasons why prolonged stress opens us up to more cancers, especially for premenopausal women.
Stress also affects women on hormone replacement in the same way if they are under prolonged stress and their 2-methoxy levels go
down (because all those methyl groups are being used methylating adrenaline), women enduring prolonged stress will have less
cancer-fighting potential being made internally.
If the FDA is successful at preventing compounding pharmacists from compounding nature’s own bioidentical hormones, then the
patent medicine companies will be the only ones who are approved to sell this stuff. If no one else is allowed to sell these hormones,
then patent medicine companies still have an “exclusive”—as if they had a patent on nature—and they would be able to make
enormous profits, which is the whole point with patent medicine companies. And the fact that people will have blood clots and inflammation, which is dangerous to their health and lives, by taking such big dosages, and that they are throwing up, is not an issue with them.
These huge doses are not good for people, and it is not good for those of us who want to go natural or alternative. Big business
and government (fascism) has such a hold over our abilities to treat our bodies the way we choose. You have to go around and find
out this information for yourself. You have to do your own research and read between the lines when attacks come out.
Stress reduction helps our bodies make more cancer-fighting 2-methoxyestradiol. We can also take safe, natural food-based supplements to help our bodies manufacture 2-methoxyestradiol. This includes supplements with the word methyl or meth in them, such as
methylcobalamin, which is the intermediate of vitamin B12; methylfolate, the intermediate form of folic acid; and S-adenosylmethionine,
also called SAM-e. Those three supplements will help our bodies increase our own anticancer 2-methoxyestradiol. Even in very
tiny amounts, 2-methylestraediol inhibits the growth of uterine fibroid cells. So not only is it cancer inhibiting, it also inhibits benign
abnormal growth.
Cancer
165
Women are never the same after a total hysterectomy unless they are fortunate enough to find a practitioner, who knows how to restore
them hormonally—which rarely happens. Most doctors don’t understand how to work with human chemistry using bioidentical
substances and substances found in nature. In a couple of generations we are going to look back and say, “Oh my God, why weren’t
we teaching this in medical schools?”
Most doctors don’t study how to manipulate normal body chemistry safely and effectively with molecules natural to the body,
so they would not have a clue about 2-methoxyestradiol and its anticancer effect, but there are many peer-reviewed research papers
about it available.
Medical schools teach about body chemistry, but when it’s time to teach how to work with body chemistry to treat illness, medical
schools switch away from using chemicals naturally made in our bodies or introduced from nature—which our bodies are adapted
to, with some exceptions, of course—and start teaching what to do about illness with patent medicine molecules.
There is a testosterone-metabolizing enzyme called 5-alpha reductase and the patent medicine companies are all over that one. They’ve
made patent medications including Proscar and Propecia that inhibit 5-alpha reductase, and research has found that inhibiting 5-alpha
reductase can lower a man’s risk of prostate cancer. But there’s a potential problem with doing that. The natural pathway or metabolism
is: testosterone can turn into dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The enzyme that helps do that is 5-alpha reductase. DHT is an even more
potent version of testosterone than testosterone itself and is thought to be procarcinogenic.
After testosterone turns into DHT, DHT is then metabolized into androstenediol, which is anti-carcinogenic. So what’s important
is the balance between the pro-carcinogenic DHT and the anti-carcinogenic androstenediol, not just the amount of either one
alone. It’s a very similar situation to the ratio between procarcinogenic estrone and estradiol and the anticarcinogenic estriol that we
covered earlier.
So if a man has more andorstenediol than he has DHT, that man is less likely to get cancer from the procarcinogenic DHT
because of a properly balanced ratio. We can do twenty-four-hour urine tests that check the DHT and the androstenediol and we
can also check blood tests. But if a man is taking either Proscar or Propecia or another 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, the lab report will
show it. DHT will be significantly reduced.
If that were the only effect of these patent medicines, we could say there’s no question that they reduce cancer risk, so—as some urologists have written—every man should use them. Unfortunately, sometimes these drugs lower androstenediol even more than they
lower DHT, which gives an improperly balanced ratio—too little anti-carcinogenic androstenediol, even though pro-carcinogenic
DHT has been lowered, and that increases cancer risk. Too much inhibition of 5-alpha reductase with Proscar and Propecia might
inhibit androstenediol, resulting in the wrong balance.
Saw palmetto berries can be used as a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor for men whose 5-alpha reductase enzyme is overactive. And it works,
but even though it’s natural and less hazardous than patent medicines, it’s still important to check both DHT and androstenediol if
you’re taking saw palmetto for years and years. But, before a man reaches for the saw palmetto, he should know that both supplemental
zinc and some fatty acids—especially gamma-linolenic acid (GLA)—can inhibit 5-alpha reductase too, and should be tried first,
because they are both essential to life, and saw palmetto isn’t.
If our bodies need an essential nutrient for one purpose, it’s very likely our bodies need it for many other purposes, too, including many
we don’t even know about. If a man needs zinc to modulate his testosterone metabolism, he may need it for his vision, his hearing, or
something else. But if he uses saw palmetto instead, it won’t help these other areas.
But one thing we all need to understand: even though bioidentical hormones are much safer than patent medicine versions of hormones,
there’s no such thing as perfect safety. The best we can do is minimize our risk. That’s why very careful follow-up testing is so important.
Even premenopausal women or men can develop hormone-related cancer from time to time, and these are their own hormones and they
are bioidentical because they are internally produced. So we cannot eliminate the risk totally, particularly in today’s world with all the
toxic chemicals out there. But at least we can minimize the risk by getting a comprehensive test that shows not only your levels
of hormones—as in “Is it too much, or is it too little, or is it just right?”—but also checks all these points of metabolism of hormones,
whether they’re made internally or taken as bioidentical hormones from the outside. If hormones are not metabolizing properly,
there is something that can be done nearly every time: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb, or something natural that will stimulate normal
metabolism or inhibit abnormal metabolism.
When you see a man with breasts and a big belly, you can see that it too much of his testosterone has turned into estrogen. Too much
or the wrong kind of estrogen can be a cancer setup for a man’s prostate gland. Besides the visible effect of too much estrogen
in a man—including breasts, big belly high voice, sagging shoulders, lack of energy, lack of vitality, inability to achieve potent erections—all can indicate that the ratio of estrogen to testosterone is off and causing symptoms.
Critical Condition
166
This is where women are different: if a woman were experiencing equivalent symptoms, she would be at the doctor’s office immediately.
Men will just accept these symptoms as normal and give in. If too much estrogen for a man is the problem, he can easily pick this up
with a twenty-four-hour urine test because the urine test can show estriol and other estrogens that a blood test can’t.
If a man finds higher estrogen levels than normal and relatively low testosterone levels, he shouldn’t push testosterone replacement until he works to correct the reasons why too much of his testosterone is turning into estrogen. This is one of several ways
to reduce cancer risk, too. If a man sticks to the program—which involves diet change and several supplements—he can lower his
estrogens and more safely use testosterone supplementation. He can get to feeling so much better, he gets his energy back, and if
he works on his health seriously, he can achieve his optimal self.
Progesterone is generally considered to be anti-carcinogenic. It reduces a woman’s risk of cancer if one is taking bioidentical estrogen.
Testosterone (in woman-size quantities) reduces a woman’s risk too, as does melatonin. But progesterone is the major protector in
this group.
If a woman is using bioidentical hormones, she should be using a pattern that includes estrogen, progesterone, DHEA, melatonin, and
likely testosterone and a little bit of desiccated thyroid (not synthroid). Men using bioidentical testosterone should likely be using
DHEA, melatonin, and a little bit of desiccated thyroid, too.
Postmenopausal women should use estrogen in a cycling pattern, mimicking nature, just like when they were making a cycle
naturally. It’s a bit of work but if you pay attention and do this work, it can give you a longer, healthier, more active life. It takes about
fifteen minutes a day to do a routine and about $85 a month (2010) for hormones, and for this you get to live a more youthful, happier,
higher quality of life.
Dr. Guy Abraham, who has led the revolution in iodine use, reminds us that a Journal of the American Medical Association article in the
1970s reported that women who take thyroid and do not take iodine had precisely twice the risk of cancer as those women who
take thyroid and iodine. And on its own, iodine (not iodide) protects a woman against breast cancer. Two groups of researchers
have reported that iodine actually helps kill some breast cancer cell lines. Iodide also helps with acid reflux—a condition they don’t tell
you about when undergoing radiation. t should be all three desiccated thyroid, iodine and iodide. Women who want to take advantage
of iodine’s protective effects against breast cancer should check with a practitioner skilled and knowledgeable in natural and nutritional
medicine and, if possible, knowledgeable in bioidentical hormones, too.
Dr. Bill Cham who wrote a book called The Eggplant Cancer Cure, has found substances that can penetrate and kill skin cancer cells,
but can’t penetrate normal skin cells. So normal skin cells are untouched and unhurt while the skin cancer cells die. We’re talking
about basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Our Congress has allowed the growth of giant bureaucracies, giant government agencies, most of them federal, which are allowed to promulgate regulations without any congressional oversight. Those agencies
then turn into judge, jury, and, in fact, executioner—no separation of powers. They impose enormous fines, they destroy business, and
they can do all that by administrative process.
Imagine how many more innovative physicians we would have doing safe, natural therapies if they weren’t simply so intimidated by
what they have seen happen to so many of these doctors. Dr. Burzynski is the best—or the worst—example of intimidation, however
you’d like to look at that. If we all felt as good as those on full bioidentical hormone replacement, no one would need all their
drugs, and that is what this is all about. We are not the customer they want. Big business would prefer we are in a constant state of
degradation and needing many of their drugs to get us through the day.
Enzyme Therapy
Since ancient times, enzymes have unknowingly been involved in treating human ailments. While the properties of enzymes have
largely been unknown until recently, results were witnessed and associations of health or disease were made between various plant
and animal substances. The healing properties of herbs are primarily attributed to alkaloid or other chemical properties that trigger a
response in the body. Invariably, the chemistry of herbs affects metabolic enzyme pathways.
The unique substance either inhibits an enzyme or stimulates another to change body chemistry. Some plants have unique essential
oils capable of inhibiting or destroying pathogenic microorganisms due to the disruption of some enzymatic pathway of the organism.
Regardless of what healing modality is chosen, what remains to be understood is that in every case the healing can only occur if the body
has enough metabolic enzymes to do the work. Work in this case denotes the ability to initiate, alter, speed up or slow down biochemical
processes. It indicates having the capacity to break apart or join together components, to change their original structure and function.
Eating cooked food demands enzymes in the process of digesting them. Cooked foods must be broken down even at the expense of the
immune system. This daily assault of cooked foods drains enzymes from many sources, especially the immune and lymph systems.
When metabolic enzymes have been constantly drained from other organs and systems (particularly the immune system) to digest
food, there will be little left during an immune crisis, as in eliminating cancer cells.
Cancer
167
It has been shown that pancreatic enzymes as well as the constituents bromelain and papain stimulate the production of tumor
necrosis factor. Tumor necrosis factor is a cytokine (a non-antibody protein which acts as an intercellular mediator in an immune
response) capable of hemorrhagic necrosis (destruction) of tumors and can exert cytostatic and ctotoxic activity on transformed cell
lines. In other words, enzymes not only digest foreign objects but they can activate other protein products of the immune system to
destroy undesirable growths in the body.
In the early 1900s Dr. John Beard, a Scottish embryologist, filtered the pancreatic liquid of freshly slaughtered young animals for the
active enzyme content. He reasoned from observations that young animals had to have greater and more powerful concentrations of
enzymes because the energy required for growth was greater. Dr. Beard injected this concentration into veins, gluteal muscles and
sometimes directly into tumor sites of cancer patients. He observed the rapid shrinkage of tumor masses and cancer cell growth inhibition. Some patients experienced allergic reactions because the unpurified juice contained foreign proteins. In spite of this, more than
half of the cancers completely disappeared, while other patients’ lives greatly improved and were prolonged far beyond what was
expected. Dr. Beard’s enzyme treatment caused turmoil in the allopathic medical community in England. He was called a charlatan
and received threats to close down his practice.
However, patients of other doctors requested Dr. Beard’s enzyme treatment. To satisfy them, doctors ordered pancreatic juice from local
pharmacists who, in turn, ordered it from the slaughterhouses. Doctors were sold pancreatic juice from older animals whose enzyme
content was inactive. Unfortunately, the results were not successful and patients were very disappointed. In all, Dr. Beard treated 170
cancer patients and recounted his enzyme therapy in his book, The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and its Scientific Basis, published in
1907. Not much followed from the early part of the 20th century. Indeed, it was not until the 1930s that clinical use of enzymes began
to pique the interest of a few physicians. In the early 1930s, a “special substance” was discovered in the blood of healthy individuals
which was proficient at attacking and destroying cancer cells.
However, this substance was found only very slightly or was missing altogether in patients suffering from cancer. Working during those years in New York, Dr. Max Wolf became one of the most celebrated doctors of his time. He was fascinated to hear of this
substance and began investigating on his own. He convinced Dr. Helen Benitez to join him from her post in the neurosurgical department at Columbia University, and they performed thousands of tests to determine exactly what this substance was. They concluded it
had to be enzymes.
“Fight-o-Nutrients’: Using Plants as Allies in Cancer Recovery
There is no substitute for a diet rich in phytonutrients, health-promoting biochemicals found in plants. Some phytonutrients should be
eaten in extra measure for preventing cancer recurrence, especially since several have been shown to help direct the switches of genetic
expression, blocking cancer cells. If you’ve limited your phytonutrient search to fruits and vegetables, you’re missing out. Rich sources
also include cooking oils, red wine, coffee, spices, herbal seasonings, pickled ginger, chocolate, vinegar, and teas. The converse is that
those who cook with highly processed cooking oils, flavor with refined salt instead of unprocessed sea salt and seasoning, drink sodas,
and choose highly processed snacks are missing out on what might be the lion’s share of phytonutrients.
Fat-Soluble Means Found in Fat and Best Eaten with Fat
Phytonutrients, including carotenoids, zeaxanthins, lycopene, lutein, resveratrol, tocotrienols, allicin, and oleuropein, are fat-soluble.
As the term fat-soluble suggests, phytonutrients are found in plant fats, as a biochemist or agronomist might call them. In culinary
terms, plant fats are cooking oils, and cooking oils are an excellent source of these phytonutrients. Consider red palm oil, from the
fruit of the African palm. Its reddish-orange color is derived from the high concentration of beta-carotene. Palm oil phytonutrients are
also better absorbed than those in a glass of carrot juice, for example, because the intestines takes in fat-soluble vitamins best when
they are eaten with fat.
Another overlooked source of beta-carotene is green leafy vegetables. Unlike yams, carrots, and other root vegetables, green leafy
vegetables receive the full strength of the sun. Green chlorophyll protects the leaves and helps them harvest the Sun’s energy. The
red, orange, and yellow hues conferred by the carotenoids are masked until autumn, when the weakening sun and waning chlorophyll
reveal the colors in a beautiful display. Herbs are an excellent source of flavor and phytonutrients.
Choose the Skin, Seeds, and Leaves
Plants, like people, spend their resources on their offspring and shelter. In dietary terms, the nuts, seeds, skins, and leaves tend to be
where plants concentrate nutrients. Take the grape. Red wine, which is made including the skin, has health benefits because of the
phytonutrients. The same phytonutrients prevent mildew, which is why fewer sulfites are added to red wine. Grape seeds also contain
phytonutrients, which confer the green color. Since grape seeds are an industrial byproduct from the wine industry, oil and dietary
supplements are fairly accessible. Since the nutrients are fat soluble, they are best absorbed when taken with a meal, a glass of kefir,
or a snack bar, for example. Both the leaves and seeds of olives are rich in phytonutrients, some of which reduce allergy symptoms,
among their immune-regulating activities. “Extra-virgin” olive oil, from the first pressing of the olives, is the greenest oil because it
has the most phytonutrients.
Critical Condition
Avoid Fat-Soluble Chemicals
168
Xenoestrogens and several other classes of potentially carcinogenic compounds are fat soluble—a smart reason to choose organic
cooking oils. However, if the organic oils are in plastic containers instead of glass, the benefits are lessened. Plastic exposed to heat
and ultraviolet light before it reaches the grocery store could emit harmful chemicals into the oil.
Avoid “Enriched” Foods
Phytonutrients are antioxidants, which to the food industry means that naturally occurring nutrients prevent fats from going rancid and
extend their shelf life. Food processing removes phytonutrients, so in order to prevent the food from spoiling, some synthetic, coal-tar
derived nutrients are added back. The food industry sometimes refers to these depleted foods as “enriched.”
One group of foods that many of us unknowingly eat every day is foods enriched with vitamin E. Foods are stripped of their naturally
occurring vitamin E’s—alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-tocopherols—and replaced by a large dose of just one of the eight, alphatocopherol. Alpha-tocopherol keeps the food from spoiling because it has the highest antioxidant potential, but it has been shown to
be less healthful than the full symphony of vitamin E, and possibly even harmful. Most of the synthetic vitamin E used in processed
food is made by the Eastman Kodak company.
Choose Minimally Processed Tropical Oils as a Source of Vitamin E
In contrast, unprocessed oils are rich in vitamin E’s, especially tropical oils such as coconut and macadamia nut, which protect the
plants’ progeny from effects of the tropical heat. Tropical oils also have a higher content of heat-resistant saturated fat. The more
unsaturated the oil is, the more vulnerable it is to heat, including cooking heat. Tropical oils can safely be exposed to high heat such
as when frying. Saturated plant fats have shorter biochemical structures than saturated animal fats and are beneficial for the immune
system, another reason to choose minimally processed oils.
Vitamin E Supplementation
If one chooses to supplement with vitamin E in the context of preventing cancer recurrence, choose carefully and only select products
with a mixture of tocopherols, and optimally tocotrienols as well. The best source is a food-source supplement. If a vitamin E supplement has only alpha-tocopherol, consider safely discarding it.
If a vitamin E supplement contains a mixture of both l- and d-alpha tocopherol, a mixture of the natural and synthetic molecules that
are mirror images of each other, definitely discard it. Similarly, the results of any clinical trial that used alpha-tocopherol shouldn’t be
generalized to all vitamin E’s.
Survivors recovering from mainstream treatment of cancer often have been involved with recovering from a stressful diagnosis, surgery,
general anesthesia, radiation, and chemotherapy. Any one of these components deserves special attention to healthful diets. Certainly,
anyone journeying through cancer should receive the gift of nourishment, in every sense of the word.
Dietary supplements are not an expedient substitute for physical nourishment, but in cancer care they can buttress the extreme
physical demands of the journey. Fight cancer with “fightonutrients.”
Foods to Avoid
People at a high risk for cancer should avoid red meat. If you are at high risk for cancer, red meat is high in iron, particularly the
most absorbable form of iron we know of. Iron is a major carcinogen because it triggers massive amounts of free radicals and
inflammation. If you take mice and have them breathe iron dust, a high percentage of them develop lung cancer. Children with leukemia with high levels of iron in their system have a much higher death rate.
Iron plays a big part in mortality, growth, and aggressiveness of tumors. So if you are at high risk of cancer, you should avoid it.
Don’t let meat burn; don’t let it get charred, because it produces potent carcinogenic chemicals. If you love red meat, then be
sure you eat it with vegetables, and they will dramatically reduce the iron absorption.
Avoid omega-6 oils. Use extra-virgin olive oil or coconut oil. Don’t cook at high heat because heat oxidizes the oil and ruins it. Put
turmeric in your olive oil and it won’t oxidize.
Berries are very important: blueberries, raspberries, blackberries. You can take the densest vegetables and put them in a blender and
drink at least ten to twelve ounces a day, preferably with a meal. Flavonoids are extremely powerful cancer inhibitors of all kinds.
They also prevent iron absorption. Also, drink purified water. Don’t drink fluoridated water, or chlorinated water. But if you drink
distilled water, add a little magnesium citrate or magnesium malate to a gallon of water and that should be your main drink.
Red wine is good for the antioxidants, but not to excess. A couple of glasses a day is good and it relaxes you. And it prevents cancer.
Avoid sugar, avoid artificial sweeteners.
Cancer
169
Avoid anything with MSG or any kind of excitotoxic chemicals and glutamates, as they have been found to be an enormously powerful
stimulant for cancer growth and especially cancer invasion. Many tumors grow fast, like melanomas and certain types of breast cancer,
ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer—all are very glutamate sensitive. Glutamate is an amino acid called glutamic acid, and it is one of
the most abundant neurotransmitters in the brain, but its concentration outside the brain cells needs to be very carefully controlled
because of its toxicity. Glutamates are excitotoxins, or chemicals that are harmful to the brain, and are found in processed foods and
have many names, such as hydrolyzed protein or hydrolyzed vegetable protein, soy protein, or soy protein concentrates, soy isolates,
MSG, caseinate, autolyzed yeast enzymes, and autolyzed yeast extract, and “natural flavoring.”
The soy industry spent millions of dollars putting out stories that soy is the miracle food. What they don’t tell people is soy has one
of the highest concentrations of manganese. Avoid all soy foods. Soy products have a very high concentration of fluoride and a
very high concentration of glutamate.
Studies show that if you feed soy to animals that have breast cancer, it makes the cancer grow faster. We know that manganese,
fluoride, and glutamate are terrible brain toxins, and neuroscience journals show that giving soy formula to children is associated
with Parkinson’s disease because of the manganese. Women have been lulled into thinking that eating and drinking all this soy is
good for them, but it is loaded with all this manganese, which is a powerful brain toxin and has been shown to cause brain atrophy.
A study in Hawaii showed that people who consumed the greatest amount of soy products had the greatest brain atrophies and
dementia. Women are told repeatedly that soy is breast cancer protective. They always point to the women of Japan and their lower
rates of breast cancer and say, “It’s the soy.”
Soy has been shown to be a powerful aromatase stimulator. Aromatase is an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen, and we
know that breast cancers produce a lot of aromatase, and things that stimulate a breast cancer also stimulate aromatase. Almost
all flavonoids, like curcumin, inhibit aromatase, and that’s one of the ways they prevent breast cancer. Soy massively increases
aromatase, so that’s a reason not to consume soy. he other thing is that most soy is genetically modified. Genetically modified foods
have shown increased evidence that they induce sterility. So young women who are consuming it may find they are having trouble
getting pregnant. That’s another reason not to consume a lot of soy products.
Tumors
Cancer sufferers are usually not dying of cancer (tumor formation), as such, but of metal and dye toxicity and of mis-biochemistry.
This means that as glad as you will be to see your tumors shrink, you must not become complacent! You must also remove the toxins!
Your body has built-in tumor shrinkers. If you have tumors, they are obviously not working, because they are blocked and need to
be unblocked. This only takes days to do this and begin the shrinking process. Oncogenes, such as the myc family, stop reproducing.
Even p53 mutations, the hallmark of cancers, disappear! p53, also called the tumor suppresser gene, is the gene that makes our “policeman” protein. It stands guard over our nucleic acid threads. It can recognize mutations, like intercalation, and stop those cells from
multiplying. It allows no further gene duplication until the mutation has been “fixed.” The PAH or other mutagen must be pulled or
snipped out from between the bases and any missing bases replaced correctly before p53 will release its hold. When the p53 gene has
become mutated, multiplication is allowed to go on and on, in spite of the gross mutations that are now occurring and being passed along.
hCG is human Chorionic Gonadotropin, the same hormone a mother produces in her placenta to protect the growing baby from attack
by her own immune system. hCG will protect the tumor cells from attack, no doubt, by your immune system. hCG is only present when isopropyl alcohol is present and organic germanium (good germanium) is absent. All kinds of cancer come from: the
parasite Fasciolopsis buscii in combination with isopropyl alcohol–an antiseptic, commonly used in cosmetics. The isopropyl alcohol
enables this fluke to settle in the liver, from where eggs spread into the whole body. The weakest organ is where they cause the
cancer (without isopropyl alcohol the liver would filter out parasites).
100 % of all cancer patients have this combination: isopropyl alcohol, parasites and at least one weak organ. Both nonprescription and
prescription painkillers are heavily polluted with antiseptic (isopropyl alcohol), petroleum residue (benzene), and traces of azo
dyes. These will go straight to your tumors; some will be stored in your body fat. Ortho-phospho-tyrosine is a powerful growth stimulant, made by parasite larvae (Fasciplopsis), induced in our cells by the intestinal fluke parasite. The explosive growth that results has
disastrous consequences: metastasis to other places in the body. Killing this parasite and all its tiny larval stages stops it in about a week.
Tumor cells do nothing to contribute to the organ they live in. Tumor cells have no tools to work with; this means they have no enzymes,
nor RNA to make enzymes. Tumor cells do not even have the raw materials to make proteins; this means they have no amino acids.
Besides this, the tumor cells’ energy-generators (mitochondia) are shriveled, misshapen, few in number and are mostly shut down; and
the ones remaining are old and decrepit. The mitochondria are in a broken down condition for two reasons: (1) constant interference
by malonic acid, and (2) lack of thyroid hormones. Malonic acid is constantly being eaten because it occurs in some common foods.
It also trickles in from tapeworm larvae lodged in us and from a completely unnatural source, plastic teeth.
Critical Condition
170
The lack of thyroxine, a major thyroid hormone, is not due to a weak thyroid gland as in an ordinary hypothyroid condition. The thyroid
gland makes its daily quota of thyroxine and circulates it via the blood stream to each one of our 100 trillion cells. It must enter each
cell and deliver its activating influence. But as the thyroxine enters the tumor cell, and approaches the mitochondria, it is attacked by
thiourea. Thiourea destroys the thyroid hormone. This does not happen in the neighboring healthy tissue. When these cells are
healed, the tumors shrink and the tissue returns to normal.
Thiourea is a normal chemical, made by each cell to facilitate cell division. In the tumor cell, it is being overproduced in its own effort
to heal itself. Our cells instinctively know they must multiply themselves to heal. This provides healthy, young cells to fill a hole
or to replace injured cells. The damaged cells are digested. Tumor cells are busily healing themselves by such multiplication. They
don’t stop because the inhibition or “brakes” on cell division are not being used. This allows the accelerator of cell division, thiourea,
to be on continuously. The inhibition of cell division is from another chemical made by each cell for itself, called pyruvic aldehyde.
Not only is there an accelerated multiplication of cells going on, but the brakes slowing them down are gone. At the same time the excess
thiourea destroys the thyroid hormones, and without thyroxine the mitochondria can’t do their work. Pyruvic aldehyde is susceptible
to amines, much as car brakes are susceptible to drops of oil. Amines react and combine with pyruvic aldehyde until it is all gone.
Our cells normally make thiourea for one minute, followed by pyruvic aldehyde for one minute, and so on, back and forth, like a pendulum, to keep a balance between the accelerator and the brakes on cell division. But when massive amounts of amines appear in the
cell, there may be no brakes on cell division for fifteen minutes at a time, followed by just one minute of pyruvic aldehyde, typical of
a fast growing tumor. The excessive amount of amines in tumor cells is produced by bacteria. Simple bacteria!
They have entered the cells as they always try to do. But for some reason the tumor cells can neither kill them, nor free themselves
of them. The predator is living within! The cells’ primitive solution to this impasse is to divide itself, so at least one of the two newly
formed cells will escape and be free of the attacker, assuring survival.
Tumor cells are not able to do any work; they are sick. Bacteria have attacked them. Their toxic amines have removed the brakes.
Without brakes thiourea production is endless and thyroxine can’t reach the mitochondria. Mitochondria are dependent on
thyroxine. Without it, the generator-like enzymes cannot burn the food molecules that are waiting to be oxidized into ATP.
Without enough energy, tumor cells only divide and contribute nothing. Fasciplopsis larvae then contributes ortho-phospho-tyrosine
to accelerate them into malignancy.
Ordinarily, when bacteria attack, either your cells or the bacteria win the battle. It is a life and death struggle. If the bacteria win, your
cells die. They do not become tumor cells. They are dead and will be removed by your white blood cells. But if your cells win, the
bacteria die and are digested by special little “fortresses” inside your cells called lysosomes.
Unfortunately, thyroxine is needed to activate your lysosomes too! Because tumor cells are short on thyroxine an impasse is occurring. They neither die, nor can they kill their invaders. They are half alive, and half dead. Tumor-making bacteria are of the
Clostridium species. Clostridium bacteria are anaerobes. This means they are very primitive, not even tolerating oxygen. Their origin
goes back to the time when the earth had no oxygen. To survive, they have found clever ways to avoid oxygen. They may live with
bacteria that use up the oxygen around them. They may live inside parasites that shelter them from oxygen. They may live in canned
food, oxygen free if they have been allowed to enter during canning (botulism is cased by Clostridium botulinum).
They may live at the bottom of deep wounds, like punctures, where oxygen does not enter because circulation is bad (tetanus is caused
by Clostridium tetani). If oxygen suddenly appears, they quickly make capsules around themselves, like heavy armor, to survive until
it becomes anaerobic again. Clostridium bacteria have the ability to make DNA in a special bacterial way. They make huge amounts
of DNA from RNA by the enzyme, ribonucleotide reductase. Their enzyme requires vitamin B12, which you supply. Cancer patients
harbor Clostridium throughout the intestine, reaching all the way to the stomach! They harbor a seething mass of Clostridium bacteria.
The cancerous organ has been invaded by Clostridium, too.
In very advanced cancer, the entire body is invaded. Clostridium species of bacteria are the constant companions of tumors, supplying the DNA, the toxic amines, and even the isopropyl alcohol which will eventually contribute to malignancy. The bacteria
are thriving, while flooding your cells with excess DNA that can be used for cell division. Transformation is a scientific term that
describes what happens when your genes (DNA) have been joined by foreign DNA. Your cells become changed (transformed), stopping their normal RNA and protein formation.
Clearing up Clostridium infection requires removing abscessed teeth, teeth with microleakage (infection in crevices under fillings), and eliminating infections in the jawbone itself where teeth once were, called cavitations. Cells that are struggling for their
lives call out for help. They call for your immune system. They call for a temperature rise. They call for oxidizers. They call
for reducers. Ultimately, they call for self-destruction in a self-sacrificing way to protect you; so that you could never develop an
aggressive tumor.
But what will go wrong?
171
Cancer
· Your immune system will fail
· Your temperature will not rise
· Your oxidizers will vanish
· Your reducing power will disappear
Lowered immunity is a hallmark of cancer. The flood of hCG incapacitates the immune process. Metals arriving on the scene destroy
white blood cells’ ability to find and “home-in” on the infected cells. The absence of germanium (the good kind) suppresses immunity
and does not let interferon be made. White blood cells are smothered with ferritin or immobilized due to lanthanides. All healthy
cells have glutathione, and all cells with bacteria, heavy metal, or malonic acid, do not. Glutathione has been destroyed by trying
to detoxify these. So for these reasons your cells cannot depend on your immune system to assist them.
Your body tries to raise its temperature. This will cook and fry many invaders. But a person with cancer has a body that does not respond.
This is because of weak thyroid hormone production or response. In fact, cancer sufferers are extra cold. Their body temperature is
often more than one degree colder than normal! The result is that your struggling cells will not get the temperature rise they need.
Your body’s oxidizers will vanish. Oxidation means burning up by adding an oxygen atom or by subtracting an electron.
Oxidation is used to detoxify substances as well as to burn food into energy. The detoxifying enzymes belong to a family called
cytochrome P450 enzymes. But they must have iron to function. If you live in a home with copper water pipes, the excess copper in
your water is competing with the iron in your food. Other oxidizers like diamine oxidase, D-amino acid oxidase, rhodizonic acid, and
cytochrome C are also missing.
Your body’s reducers will disappear. When oxidizer-chemistry fails, the opposite can be tried, reduction. Now atoms of oxygen are
removed or electrons are added. Vitamin C is an example of a reducer. It gives away its own electrons to the chemical the body wishes
to reduce. It gives away its hydrogen atoms too, and then is itself called dehydroascorbate. Cysteine and glutathione are two other
reducers. Reduction, like oxidation, is strong chemistry, but in a cancer person this mechanism is very weak.
There is very little reducing power in the blood. It’s largely due to exposure to heavy metals, like nickel and chromium from stainless
steel cookware, or cadmium from galvanized water pipes and cigarette smoke, or mercury, thallium and germanium (toxic kind) from
amalgam tooth fillings. Your cells are reaching a crisis. They are losing their immunity, bacteria are attacking them, and so they are
trying to multiply themselves out of this predicament, and, of course, trying to self-destruct at a stepped-up pace, too. The end result
for a person with tumors is that self-destruction did not keep up with cell division, and a small mass formed.
Meanwhile, as the cells are multiplying faster and faster, a sinister development takes place. The very act of mitosis (cell division)
exposes the chromosomes to chemicals that might cause mutations. The protective nuclear membrane is temporarily gone, leaving
the genes naked in the cell fluid, called cytoplasm. Normally, mitosis is done quickly and not very often, to reduce this risk. But in the
Clostridium-infected cells, mitosis is going on much more frequently due to the overabundance of thiourea. A scientist, looking
at a specimen of a very early tumor sees many more nuclei going into mitosis—they become densely stained when dyes are applied
that color DNA, making it easy to spot and count the cells that are in mitosis. This gives scientists a measure of the rate of mitosis.
The problem with constant mitosis is that it increases exposure of your genes to the hazards of mutagens (causing mutations) in the
cytoplasm. They are piling up due to too much mitosis. It is a beginning “adenoma” typical of benign or pre-malignant tumors. Soon
mutations abound in this fast-multiplying tissue. But they will not be random mutations. They will be mostly p53, LDH and alkaline
phosphatase enzyme, vitamin-A, bcl-2 and bax mutations. Bcl-2 should be produced for thirty seconds only, out of each minute. Now
it is produced for forty seconds, leaving only twenty seconds for bax. Bax, a protein bit from another gene, should be detectable for its
share of time, the remaining thirty seconds out of each minute. Healthy tissues, right beside the tumor-growing organ are producing
bax at the proper rate.
In a growing tumor, bax is always under-produced. Gradually the ratio worsens, until it appears as if bcl-2 is always present and bax
is not. Bcl-2 and bax decide whether a cell will self-destruct by starting to digest itself internally. Cells filled with lanthanides, and
therefore, calcium and iron deposits cannot be digested externally by pancreatin and lipase. A tissue in distress or simply in accelerated
mitosis attracts many things. It attracts heavy metals. It attracts dyes. It attracts more bacteria and parasites. It attracts mutagens and
carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals). But it also attracts good things, like vitamins and immune boosters. Attracting even minute
quantities of toxins is significant. This peculiarity was noticed quite early in cancer research.
Numerous small doses of a carcinogen were more effective than fewer large doses. It was similar to the carcinogenic action of radiation:
the smaller the dose, the more effective it was at causing cancer. This is why it is not wise to wear metal jewelry, to remove toxic tooth
fillings, to change their metal water pipes to plastic, and avoid processed food (has traces of dyes and antiseptic chemicals). Although
the dose seems small, these particular toxins, over time, can be deadly.
Critical Condition
172
The attraction of certain metals, like thulium, gallium, and technetium, specifically to cancer sites has been the feature making bone
scans possible. Cobalt is especially attracted to dividing cells. The attractive force between bacteria and white blood cells can be “felt”
for long distances; it is destroyed by heavy metals and fungus toxins. Heavy metals arrive at the tiny site undergoing rapid mitosis:
copper, cobalt, vanadium, germanium, lead, mercury, thallium, nickel, cadmium, and the lanthanides (“rare earth” elements), as well
as arsenic, asbestos, Freon, silicone, urethane, acrylic acid, and other non-metals. Copper, cobalt, and vanadium are always there; the
others are often there. Most of them are known mutagens. Together, they begin using up all the sulfur that is available in the cells: all
the cysteine, methionine, taurine, glutathione, SAM, pantothenic acid, coenzyme-A, and vitamin B1 because these all contain sulfur.
Metals (except the lanthanides) typically combine with sulfur to form sulfides. This also detoxifies them in the body, solubilizing
them, so they can be excreted. Soon the cells are in sulfur depletion. Cysteine and methionine are amino acids, glutathione is a reducer
and immune-supporter, SAM and coenzyme-A do other vital chemistry, and pantothenic acid and vitamin B1 are essential parts (cofactors) that enzymes must have to do their work. So metals cause depletion of some of your most vital compounds. Metal sulfides can
be escorted out of the body via the kidneys and intestines. After your sulfur is used up, the plain metals remain in circulation and are
attracted to the tiny hyperactive tissue where cell division is accelerated.
Lanthanide metals cannot be detoxified this way. They belong to a special group of metals that are highly magnetic (paramagnetic),
second only to iron. They were once called “rare earths,” though they are not rare. But they were so difficult to separate, one from
another, that getting any one in pure form was rare indeed. There are 15 in all; although two other elements, yttrium and scandium, are
often added to the group. All the lanthanides are detected in the metals used to restore teeth!
The lanthanides do more sinister damage than regular heavy metals. They disturb your own DNA production; it begins too late (by
13 seconds) but then runs overtime. The extra DNA is pushed into the lysosomes where the enzyme DNAse, which will destroy it.
The lanthanides seem to fill up your cells with iron deposits and calcium deposits. Cells “choked” with iron and calcium are not able
to mark themselves as targets for digestion. The tag or signal is a chemical called phosphatidylserine; it can be forced to stick out of
the cell membrane just like a flag! In every normal tissue some worn out cells need to be digested, so healthy tissues are positive for
phosphatidylserine. But tumors test negative for it, indicating this essential function is missing.
“Raising the flag” attracts two common digestive enzymes, pancreatin and lipase, made by the pancreas in large amounts at mealtime.
Children and healthy adults have these enzymes present in every organ at all times, but neither of these is detected in tumors. So the
lanthanides are preventing self-digestion—the very mechanism that lets tumors enlarge.
Uranium, a radioactive metal, is also found in the tumor. It, too, must come from metal tooth fillings since it is found in about 2/3 of
all amalgam ordered fresh from the factory! If you have six amalgam fillings your chance of not having uranium in your mouth is
one in 729. Non-metal mutagens also arrive at the tumor site, attracted in the same fashion. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
detected in tumors. Some PAHs are extremely carcinogenic. It is suspected that they are drawn there by the “sink effect” of purines
and pyrimidines that are present. Purines and pyrimidines are the bases that form part of all DNA. Hundreds of similar, though slightly
different PAHs can be made in a lab and many of them will be carcinogenic.
During cell division, DNA, with its purines and pyrimidines, are abundant in the cytoplasm, not hidden inside the nucleus. PAHs dissolve especially well in purines. Carcinogenic PAHs therefore, are particularly attracted to fast-dividing cells. PAHs have a resemblance
to our own cholesterol molecules. Many PAHs are produced naturally in decaying organic matter such as coal tar (fossil vegetation)
or crude oil, or a grilled hamburger. They are combinations of benzene-like rings. Benzene is a flat molecule, making the entire PAH
flat. A cholesterol molecule is very large, made up of benzene-like rings stuck together. It too will be flat. But the rings do not have
double bonds—not yet! So cholesterol is not carcinogenic—yet!
Heating cholesterol to a very high temperature, as in open fire grilling, does put double bonds into it and does make PAHs out of it.
There are enzymes that change our own cholesterol to PAHs only when Ascaris is present! Ascaris is the common roundworm of cats
and dogs. It parasitizes us, too, though it is less obvious. Many of our hormones, including estrogen and testosterone, are made from
cholesterol, and therefore have a similar structure, and therefore could be turned into PAHs as well. Both cholesterol and PAH molecules
are thin, flat, and repel water—just like the bases in our nucleic acids, our purines and pyrimidines. This similarity will lead to mutations!
Each of our chromosomes is made of a double thread of nucleic acid. Along the way are bases keeping them close together like thousands of hands clasped together. There are thousands of bases in each gene and over a thousand genes in each thread of nucleic acid.
The double thread is wound around into a spring shape; this shortens it and makes it manageable.
Only when a purine base is held by a pyrimidine base is the bond strong enough to hold the two threads close together. So while one
thread has a purine base, the other has a pyrimidine and vice versa. But along a single thread, any assortment is possible. The neighboring thread will always provide the correct base to pair with it. Obviously, the total number of purines must always equal the total
number of pyrimidines.
Cancer
173
The spring-like shape allows the bases to be stacked like the steps of a spiral staircase, at the same time keeping the threads close
together in a tight fit. Yet, cholesterol-like molecules can break into this careful arrangement when the chromosomes are lying unprotected in cytoplasm during mitosis. Cholesterol-like molecules are very thin and flat and are perfectly suited to slide between the bases
and get stuck there. In this way they cause mutations. It is called intercalation. It is quite accidental, happening when cholesterol-like
molecules ar plentiful nearby.
Our bodies have developed elaborate systems of getting rid of old cholesterol and hormones safely by detoxifying them. But the
detoxification products themselves have molecular shapes dangerously similar to the mutagens of the PAH family. Cholesterol can
occasionally and erroneously be turned into a carcinogenic PAH. A host of carcinogenic chemicals of the polycyclic hydrocarbon
class is detected in every tumor, even in warts. These were called “carcinogenic” originally because a minute quantity of a PAH
could be injected into a mouse or other animal, or rubbed onto the skin, and sometime later—often many months—tumors would appear, predictably. These tumors could be removed and planted in a different animal, causing new tumors—they had developed a life
of their own! So they were called “cancerous.”
Some carcinogens, studied by early scientists, were so long-lasting after a single minute dose that they could still be seen by a fluorescence-meter seven or eight months later! This explained why it might take so very long (a long “latency”) for cancer induction. The
carcinogen was tightly intercalated, could not be detoxified or pulled out, and was causing mutations all that time. Although PAHs
are one of the biggest abnormalities in a tumor, they are caused by parasites, one of the easiest problems to eliminate! Ascaris worms
are responsible for the 1,10 phenanthroline, 20-methylcholanthrene, and dozens of related carcinogens. Tapeworm stages contribute
phorbol and dibenzanthracene. Ascaris worms also bring two harmful bacteria: Rhizobium leguminosarum and mycobacterium avium/
cellulare. Tapeworm stages bring streptomyces bacteria which spread through the body. It could be these that are actually responsible
for the tapeworm mis-biochemistry. Streptomyces are also known for their production of mycins, some of which are potent inhibitors
of RNA and protein formation.
Fungus, too, plays a significant role. Fungus species produce special chemicals called mycotoxins to fight the bacteria that are constantly
trying to take away their feeding grounds. That is why the most popular pharmaceutical antibiotics are mycotoxins. Three mycotoxins
which are especially bad for a cancer patient are aflatoxin (peanuts) patulin (apples) and zearalenone (Russet potatoes). Actually, the
molds that make these mycotoxins grow everywhere in such abundance that we have government agencies to monitor them, even in
animal feed. But the presence of zearalenone in Russet potatoes is not controlled by an agency, because they were just recently discovered.
All tumors have these three mycotoxins within them.
Aflatoxin and patulin were studied decades ago by scientists. Aflatoxin is a large flat molecule that intercalates between the bases of
our nucleic acids. Patulin combines directly with our nucleic acids, also causing them to mutate. Aflatoxin seeks out the liver. Patulin
seeks out the parathyroid gland. But zearalenone seeks out fat. It can be found in our skin-fat when we are well and in our organ-fat
when we are ill. While it is in our fat tissue, it very slowly detoxifies into benzene! This is the only known incidence of benzene
formed by a plant or animal. It is quite abnormal to have zearalenone in our fat.
Benzene destroys our “good” (organic) germanium, changing it into “bad” (inorganic) germanium. Good germanium (carboxyethylgermanium sesquioxide) brings us special immunity; it induces interferon and raises the helper-to-suppresser ratio of our T-cells. Good
germanium protects our chromosomes from microbe invasion. Another way that good germanium is turned into bad germanium is by
asbestos. Asbestos is found everywhere in our environment. For instance of apples and plums, undoubtedly picked up from conveyer
belts that contain asbestos, because when the fruit is washed and the stem and blossom removed, the asbestos is not detected. Sugar
also tests positive to asbestos, possibly form also being transported on belts, and you can not wash sugar! So many of our sweetened
foods are polluted with small amounts of asbestos.
As soon as it is swallowed, your white blood cells try to remove it by “eating” the sharp asbestos needles. Unfortunately, the asbestos
wins the battle and is soon free again, but your white blood cells will continue to fight. Your body tries another plan: cover the tips
with a protein that will act like gum, keeping the needles together and blunted. The protein chosen is ferritin, whose neatly shaped
molecule is now torn by the asbestos spears, exposing its iron core. Exposed iron is highly oxidizing—it over-oxidizes everything in
the vicinity, including good germanium, making it bad.
Oxidized germanium may be responsible for attacking the spleen somehow and causing the anemia that is a common cause of death
for cancer sufferers, because the bad germanium is always detected at the spleen. Depleting good germanium reduces our immunity.
When the good germanium is not detected, mutations in the form of p53 and excess hCG are found. Unfortunately, it does little good
to take organic germanium supplements! There are two reasons for this.
Commercially, the organic forms are made in a laboratory so traces of inorganic germanium, such as germanium dioxide, are still
present; and secondly, unless you get rid of asbestos (and benzene), your body will inevitably change the good germanium to bad. Fortunately, asbestos can be removed in days from your vital organs by avoiding asbestos-contaminated foods and drinking lots of fluids.
Critical Condition
174
There are many other mutagens, besides PAHs in tumors. Here are a few:
· Betapropiolactone (not a PAH) also associated with Ascaris; a tumor inducer.
· Ortho-amino-azotoluene (the active portion of Sudan IV, Sudan Black B, and 4-diaminoazobenzene (DAB), three of numerous
azo dyes, pervasively present in foods, clothing, as well as hair dyes. They cause mutations that raise the blood LDH and alkaline
phosphatase while causing disappearance of vitamin-A-related body chemicals. Vitamin-A is a growth regulator!
· Fast Green, also called Food Green 3, a dye that is legitimately used to color fruits; it penetrates the entire fruit. The dye is evidently contaminated with lanthanide metals since these accompany the dye and are eaten with bananas, grapefruit, eggplant, cucumbers, etc.
· Urethane, a pollutant from the plastics industry (commonly seeping from plastic teeth); it is a potent tumor former.
· Hydroxyurea, associated with Ascaris. It kills white blood cells. It combines with ribonucleotide reductase.
· Cyclohexamide, associated with tapeworm larvae; it inhibits protein formation in you, but assists certain microbes.
· Acrolein and acrylic acid, made by overheating oils or seeping from plastic teeth, but large amounts produced by Ascaris larvae.
Induces DNA overproduction.
· All the environmental carcinogens we have been told about, like tobacco smoke, pesticides, saccharine, etc. are now headed toward the handicapped organ too. There is no detoxifying ability there and no immunity; they must simply pile up there.
So, instead of getting help from the rest of the body in response to its cries, the tiny mass, trying desperately to throw off its bacteria
and heal, is getting malicious metals and merciless mutagens sent it way. Yet, it must struggle on, whipped by thiourea, choked by
malonic acid and dyes, constantly tripped by mutations. It will not grow into an uncontrolled tumor, though, as long as it can still selfdestruct (apoptose) as fast as it multiplies. This is the state of a wart.
A wart, too, has an assortment of heavy metals detected. It has the mutagens made by mis-biochemistry of Ascaris and tapeworm stages.
It even has p53 mutations and myc oncogenes. But it can keep up its self-destruction, its apoptosis. Its bcl-2 for thirty seconds, followed by bax for thirty seconds, in endless continuity. Bax, in turn, is produced by your bax gene. The ratio of these two gene products
determines the ratio of apoptosis. A wart has started to multiply abnormally, but its growth reaches a limit.
A true tumor is also multiplying abnormally, but its apoptosis mechanism is broken so it grows limitlessly. If we could keep from
mutating our bcl-2 and bax genes, our small, helpless masses would stay that way. But by now, our small mass has a large quantity of
metals and dye accumulated. Besides, these toxins are spreading to our vital organs: the spleen, bone marrow, liver, and parathyroids.
The effects of mis-biochemistry are spreading, too. Sulfur levels are getting too low to let metal sulfides be formed for safe excretion.
Inorganic copper, cobalt, germanium, thulium (a lanthanide), vanadium, and azo dyes will become the “ultimate toxins,” the deadly
reapers for the entire body.
Copper combines with 1,10-phenanthroline, as well as iron. Copper-phenanthroline complexes cause wholesale chromosome breaks.
Cobalt activates the clostridial enzyme that makes DNA out of RNA, and it activates arginase, an enzyme that supplies polyamines,
necessary for growing tissues. Toxic germanium stops protecting us from p53 and hCG mutations. Even the normally beneficial
iron can join the harmful metals when it produces oxygen radicals. Vanadium combines with abnormally exposed nucleic acids.
Normally phosphate combines with nucleic acids to form “nucleoside phosphate complexes” called nucleotides.
But the chemistry of vanadium is rather similar to phosphate. So it forms “nucleoside vanadyl complexes.” Vanadyl complexes are
well known to molecular biologists as synthetic RNAse inhibitors, which displace your natural ones. Vanadyl complexes do one
more thing: they cause p53 mutations.
P53 mutations also occur when tapeworm larvae are present, even without vanadium. P53 mutations don’t occur in the presence of
vanadium or tapeworm larvae if good germanium is present! If p53 is incapacitated, the time that the hyperactive little mass can be
controlled so a tumor does not develop now depends on bcl-2 and bax. If this last mechanism fails, you will have a tumor.
More and more mutations, many of them translocations (misplacement) of chromosome parts, are occurring now that p53 is gone
(mutated). Bits of chromosomes litter the cytoplasm making it look like a war zone. The cells are completely disabled as productive
members of their community due to these mutations. Yet they must multiply, because Clostridium is filling the cells with toxic amines,
the brakes (pyruvic aldehyde) are out, and the accelerator (thiourea) given full reign. It is only a matter of time before the bcl-2 protein
is detected in all growing tumors, whether benign or malignant.
Mutations
A human body makes 24 billion cells every day–one billion cells every hour. One out of every million cells is mutant. All mutant
cells originate from healthy cells and mimic the characteristics of their original cells. Some cells grow slowly, while others reproduce
rapidly. Since there are more than 200 different types of healthy cells in the body, it’s easy to understand how scientists were
fooled into thinking that there are more than 250 different types of cancer, since a mutation can occur in any tissue of the body. Unlike
malaria and polio, a foreign organism that enters the body does not cause cancer. Cancer is an innate part of the body. In a true
sense, every human is predisposed to cancer.
Cancer
175
Everyone has mutant cells, but mutant cells and cancer are as different as an egg and a chicken. You could say that the egg is a “prechicken” condition. In the same way, a mutant cell is considered a “pre-cancerous” condition. It’s just as normal for a human to have
mutant cells as it is for a human to have a baby. Both are normal bodily conditions. First, a mutation occurs when something happens
to certain normal genes inside your cells. These are parts of the DNA inside the cells. Genes that have mutating potential are called
proto-oncogenes. That translates to pre-cancerous genes. What transforms them into oncogenes, or true mutant cancer genes, can be
almost any foreign substance introduced into your internal environment in the air you breathe or the food you eat, or the mutation can
simply be a spontaneous change with no identifiable cause.
The genes of all the cells of the body are not necessarily oncogenes. Something has to happen before a healthy cell turns into a
mutant. There are three different processes that can transform a normal gene into an oncogene. The DNA, the blueprint of the cell,
is built of very precise building blocks that scientists call nucleotides. If one nucleotide is substituted for another in the process of cell
duplication, this is called point mutation. When this happens, a mutant cell results.
The second process is called chromosomal translocation and occurs when chromosomes of the cell swap a chunk of genetic material
with each other.
The third process is called amplification. Cells have the ability to amplify their copying function, meaning that they make multiple
copies of genes. Instead of making two copies of a certain gene per cell in preparation for division, a cell may manufacture hundreds.
Still, it’s actually very hard for a mutant cell to qualify as a legitimate potential cancer cell. One mutation will not do it. A cell has
to mutate twice.
In every instance, cancer cells are caused by mutations of the genes in the DNA that control both cell growth and cell reproduction.
Even then, a cancerous tumor doesn’t develop unless cell growth goes out of control. For example, if just one oncogene is produced
early in life, cancer won’t surface until a second gene is disrupted and turns into an oncogene itself. So that’s why it may take 20 years
or more before cancer is detectable. Anything that alters DNA has the potential to produce oncogenes. Radiation, chemotherapy,
and chemical carcinogens have all been shown to have that ability.
Chemical substances of certain types also have a high propensity for causing mutations, including aniline dye derivatives, asbestos,
and the tars, toxins, and nicotine in cigarette smoke. Physical irritations, including the continuing abrasion of the lining of the intestinal tract by some foods, or even abrasions on the outside of the body, can lead to more rapid cellular production as the body tries to
remedy the damage. And fast cellular production offers a greater chance for mutations to occur. There is no difference in the terms
carcinogenic and mutagenic. The most damage any chemical classified as a carcinogen can do is cause a cell to mutate twice.
It takes a weak immune system to allow cancer to develop. Most cell mutations have less survival capability than normal cells and
simply die. Only a very few of the mutated cells that manage to survive actually disobey the normal feedback controls that prevent
excessive growth. They live out their limited lifespan as non-invasive mutant cells until they die of old age. Those cells that are potentially cancerous are the target of search and destroy teams of your immune system. They usually manage to clean up deviant cells
long before they can grow into a cancer colony.
Most mutated cells form abnormal proteins within themselves because of their altered genes. As the true guardians of your body, immune cells know exactly which proteins belong to your body, and which ones do not. The presence of an abnormal protein tells the
B-lymphocytes that they need to form an army of antibodies to destroy the renegade cells. If a mutation occurs before conception,
it will show up as a birth defect.
Cancer is not generally inherited in the way that cystic fibrosis or hemophilia are. In most cases, the damage to the genes occurs after
birth. However, families can exhibit a strong predisposition to cancer, but it is usually related to some learned lifestyle practices and
qualifies as an environmental not genetic trait. But remember, two mutations must take place before cancer arises. In certain
families, one or more of the oncogenes can be inherited, meaning that it takes far fewer mutations for a renegade to develop. There
are no chemicals, agents, or elements, which can be termed cancer causing, or carcinogenic. Nothing causes cancer–a weak immune
system allows cancer to develop.
Only when the immune system is incapable of destroying these malignant cells will cancer develop. As long as the cells of your
immune system are doing their job the way they’re supposed to, you will never get cancer. This is the same thing that happens when
the immune system breaks down, as it does in patients with AIDS. Several “rare” types of cancer, such as Karposi’s sarcoma, Burkitt’s
lymphoma, and chronic Myeloid leukemia, are common among AIDS victims. More recently, other cancers have been noted.
All cancers are colonies of uncontrolled cells, which ignore the laws of the body. But, because a cancer cell arises from a normal cell,
it takes on the basic characteristics of the normal tissue it calls home. For example, if the original cell comes from normally slowgrowing tissue, the malignant cell will be slow growing. If malignant cells develop from fast-growing tissue, that cancer colony will
grow rapidly. Because skin cells are constantly replacing sloughed-off dead skin cells, skin cancer grows fast.
Critical Condition
176
Although all the cells of your body carry the very same DNA blueprint, which was established at the moment of conception, the cells
are organized into more than 200 different families of cell tissue. Because all cells can mutate, it’s possible for cancer to wear 200
different disguises.
Back when our scientists began to classify various cancers, they categorized each one by the way it looked and acted. It’s only logical that they’d end up with hundreds of what they thought were different cancers. Because the transformation of a normal cell into a
cancer cell is associated with the process of cell division, tissues that relinquish the capacity to divide, such as nerve cells, cells of the
voluntary muscles, and even heart-muscle cells are virtually immune to cancer. As a cancer grows, it interferes with the functioning
of the healthy tissue that surrounds it. As a cancer grows and causes pain, humans start looking for the cause of the pain and may find
a lump. But many cancers are not painful for a very long time. That’s why so many cancers go undetected for so long.
But only undetected by humans. The immune cells know immediately. The T-cells identify each cancer cell long before it becomes
a threat to your life and health. They immediately begin to build an army to combat each colony. Most humans never know about
more than 95% of all the cancer colonies in their bodies. The only ones they know about are the ones that overwhelm the immune
defense forces. Not all cancer cells spread, or metastasize as scientists term it. You have to remember that cancer cells are renegades.
They not only exceed growth limits, they don’t even become very attached to each other. So it’s easy for some of the cells from a
primary cancer to break away and move to another area where they proceed to set up camp.
If metastasis does occur the cells from a malignant tumor move from one part of the body to another, and they start a new colony, which
scientists call a secondary cancer, wherever a tumor cell takes root. Secondary cancers are just as dangerous as primary cancers. When
a tumor begins growing in bone, for example, it weakens your structural strength considerably. Even a normal amount of physical
pressure might cause an affected bone to snap. Or, when a cancer colonizes the brain, lungs, or liver all highly susceptible to wandering
cells because of the large volume of blood which flows through them at all times, the growth can interfere with essential life support
systems. Whether it is malignant or benign isn’t important. As it grows and pushes into normal tissue size, it then becomes a factor.
Also, of the more than 200 types of normal cells, a certain proportion of them are hormone-producing organ cells.
If cancer occurs in these important cells, the mechanism, which controls the production of certain chemicals, becomes out of balance.
The danger here is that certain chemicals, which the body needs, can’t be produced, and others may be overproduced. Either way, the
balance of the body is out of control. Because the DNA of every normal cell in the body has all of the information it needs to function as
normal cells, a mutated cell can take over the responsibilities of any other cell. Certain lung cancers produce the hormones normally
produced in the pituitary gland, causing dangerously high blood pressure, serious kidney disorders, and weakening muscle structure.
Virtually any symptom, anything from a skin rash to a hallucination, might conceivably signify a tumor playing games inside the body.
Even a general feeling of malaise, the appearance of not being quite up to snuff, and an unexplained weight loss can actually turn out
to be major symptoms of early cancer. Because cancer cells proliferate so rapidly, tumors appropriate a lot of the body’s energy.
Cancer cells greedily absorb nutrients at the expense of normal cells. The tumors grow strong, as the human grows weak. Cancer
has so many faces, personalities, sizes and growth patterns, and hides in such a wide variety of symptoms, that it’s no wonder even
the best minds in the country don’t have a firm fix on cancer yet. Humans will continue to die of cancer as long as scientists treat
it as a disease.
It’s scary to know that medical experts will continue to cut, radiate, or poison already weakened bodies with chemotherapeutic chemicals
in their misguided effort to fight against a foe they have yet to properly identify. The most promising approach to cancer therapy
lies within your own body. Instead of poisoning the body, as many conventional therapies do, wouldn’t it be better to boost your
body’s own defenses against cancer? You will live out your entire lives with mutant cells roaming around inside your bodies. If
you beef up your immune system, cancer cells won’t stand a chance.
Metastasis
The development of cancer proceeds through different stages. It starts with a cell that has been damaged by toxins from the diet, medication, radiation, or other damaging factors. In many cases, the damaged cells die. Others survive and start to multiply uncontrollably.
These cells are the cradles of cancerous disease. Then, only a weakness of the connective tissue is needed for the cells to multiply exponentially and start to spread, leading to cancer. To facilitate their invasion into body organs, cancer cells secrete enzymes that digest
the surrounding connective tissue. The disintegration of connective tissue allows cancer cells to spread and invade other body organs.
Cells are surrounded by collagen and connective tissue. In order to grow and expand, healthy cells need to break down the extracellular
barrier that confines them. This process is essential for life, and for this reason, cells produce and secrete various enzymes that digest
connective tissue components, including collagen and elastin.
It is important that these enzymes, called mettalloproteinases or MMPs, be regulated by sets of activators and inhibitors so that the
integrity of the connective tissue is never compromised. Most cells of the body are capable of producing enzymes that can dissolve
connective tissue. In healthy people this takes place in certain biologically defined physiological stages.
Cancer
177
In a disease, this happens when cells and cellular systems become reprogrammed. Cancer cells, for instance, use these “biological
weapons” to multiply inside an organ and then spread through the entire body (metastasis). Microorganisms also use this collagendissolving “weapon” to spread an infection to other parts of the body.
First, the cell secretes an enzyme, called the plasminogen-activator, which has the function of activating a second enzyme, called plasmin. Active plasmin then vitalizes a third enzyme, the pro-collagenase, and converts it to the final enzyme, collagenase. Collagenase
is the enzyme that digest the collagen, thus facilitating the conditions for cells to move around the body.
The body itself uses the same mechanism in a healthy person for its normal functions, in various metabolic pathways, or to restructure
certain organs. For instance, enzymatic degradation of the connective tissue is important in the function of the body’s immune system,
during growth, and also in the restructuring of the reproductive organs during the monthly female cycle and in pregnancy. However,
our bodies are completely helpless when the mechanism that it normally uses becomes activated and abused, such as by invading
microbes. The excessive production of digestive enzymes and the disintegration of collagen and connective tissue by cancer cells are
the dangerous mechanisms by which the disease starts spreading aggressively to other organs.
Small blood vessels provide oxygen and nutrients to tumor cells. The walls of these blood capillaries are not obstacles for a cancer cell.
The diameter of these capillaries is smaller than a hair, so the cancer cell attaches itself to the wall of the capillary and “eats” its way
in with the help of collagen-dissolving enzymes and into the blood stream. The blood can then carry away cancer cells, by which they
can spread and invade other organs. The more collagen-dissolving enzymes a specific cancer cell can produce, the faster secondary
tumors will develop and the more ill a person will become.
Nature provides us with two large groups of molecules that can block the collagen-dissolving mechanism. The first group is the body’s
intrinsic enzymatic block that can stop the action of collagen-dissolving enzymes in a few moments. The second group is the enzymeblocking substances that come from our diet or as dietary supplements. In normal conditions the balance between the collagen-dissolving
mechanism and its blocking mechanism is in perfect balance.
When immune cells are wandering through the body, the balance is disturbed. But the healthy body then restores the balance within
moments. In cancer and other diseases, this balance becomes disrupted in favor of the collagen-dissolving mechanism. Because the
natural cellular mechanisms cannot sufficiently block the collagen-dissolving process, a high-dosage dietary supplement of enzymeblocking nutrients is the only possible therapy to stop or to slow down this process.
Mathias Rath, M.D. discovered that certain nutrients, including vitamin C, the amino acids L-lysine, and L-proline, and a polyphenol
fraction of green tea known as epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) are powerful natural inhibitors of collagen-digesting enzymes that
stopped the invasion and spread of a variety of cancer cells, including those of the colon, breast, and skin (melanoma).
The deficiency of vitamin C and lysine leads to dysfunction. There are two basic reasons why almost every person suffers from
a deficiency of these cell factors: the human body cannot produce them and our modern dietary habits cannot provide them in sufficient amounts. The heat from cooking denatures lysine and inactivates vitamin C. The result is that only marginal amounts of these
substances are found in the body.
When a sufficient amount of lysine is supplied as a dietary supplement, it can block the anchor sites in the connective tissue that
collagen-dissolving enzymes use to attach themselves to the tissue. Lysine, thus prevents these enzymes from uncontrollably dissolving connective tissue. While the cells still produce high levels of collagen-dissolving enzymes, in the presence of lysine these
enzymes are no longer breaking down collagen. Therefore, uncontrolled degradation of collagen and connective-tissue structure can
be prevented. The spread of diseases can be slowed or stopped. Lysine is also the basic building block of the amino acid carnitine,
which is important for energy metabolism in every cell.
About 25 percent of collagen, the most abundant and important structural molecule of bones, skin, blood vessel walls, and all other
organs, consists of two amino acids, lysine and proline. A human body weighing about 155 lbs. contains about 22 lbs. of proteins. 50%
of this protein mass is present as the connective tissue proteins, collagen and elastin. The amino acid lysine forms about 12 percent of
the collagen and elastin mass, or about 1.l to 1.3 lbs. Since our bodies are accustomed to such large amounts of lysine, taking 10 grams
of lysine daily as a dietary supplement should not be considered as excessive.
Rath’s studies indicated that the nutrient combination containing vitamin C, L-lysine, L-proline, and EGCG inhibited MMP-2 and
MMP-9, two of the digestive enzymes that cancer cells use to invade tissues in the body. In fact, the more effective the nutrient inhibition of cell movement was, the lower the enzymatic activity of cancer cells. Because these nutrients can stop the collagen-dissolving
activity of cancer cells, they also can stop these same cancer cells from spreading in the body.
Critical Condition
178
Recent research confirms that the following nutrients are effective inhibitors of the invasion of various kinds of cancer cells through
collagen and other connective tissue components:
· Epigallocatechin Gallate (EGCG) is an important polyphenolic compound of green tea. Green tea polyphenols such as epigallocatechin gallate exert anti-mutagenic, anti-proliferative, and anti-neoplastic properties. In addition, EGCG is a powerful antioxidant
capable of neutralizing free radicals and preventing cell damage. EGCG also stimulates detoxification systems through selective
induction and modification of phase I and phase II metabolic enzymes.
· Vitamin C in its lipid soluble form, ascorbyl palmitate, has been shown to be effective in eliminating abnormal cells in the body
while protecting normal cells. It stimulates the production of the connective tissue and is essential for its optimal structure. An
optimal supply assures optimal production of collagen and elastin fibers, and contributes to having strong connective tissue in the
body. Vitamin C is not produced by the human body. Alternative cancer clinics in the United States treat patients with advanced
stages of cancer with up to 200 grams of vitamin C a day.
· L-lysine and L-proline are natural amino acids that are the building blocks of collagen and elastin fibers. Lysine is a component
of collagen and it is used for making the collagen in the body. In addition, L-lysine prevents digestion of collagen by blocking
sites where enzymes attach, making this nutrient critical in preventing the degradation of connective tissue. Although L-proline is
produced by the human body in limited quantities, L-lysine is not. Even though praline can be synthesized in our body, its quantities may not be sufficient for specific body needs.
When proline is the weakest link in the collagen production chain collagen cannot be produced in optimum amounts even if the
supply of lysine and vitamin C is sufficient. When this happens, proline is the most needed. Conventional medicine still erroneously
believes that the body can produce sufficient amounts of proline, and that an external supply is not needed. Following this wrong
perception often brings fatal results. The health of the connective tissue depends on optimal daily intake of both of these two key
amino acids, as well as vitamin C.
· Selenium is an important component of the body’s antioxidant defense system and has also been shown to protect cells exposed
to toxins. As a cancer-fighting compound, selenium suppresses tumor promotion and early stages of tumor progression through
the inhibition of angiogenic enzymes.
· N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) is a powerful antioxidant, and is essential in the production of glutathione, another potent antioxidant.
NAC has also been shown to block the metastatic potential of cancer lines at the cellular level through inhibition of enzymes that
encourage tumor vascularization.
· Arginine is a conditionally essential amino acid that becomes increasingly necessary under conditions of stress, injury, or disease.
Arginine functions to enhance the immune system and inhibit cellular replication of tumors. The highest concentrations of arginine
are found in the connective tissue.
· Copper and manganese are necessary for a multitude of body functions, but particularly for optimal connective tissue structure
and stability, as well as free radical defense.
Pain
Reducing pain is the first and most important need for any cancer sufferer. Pain is the true master of us all. It even takes away our initiative to get well. If a cancer sufferer has decided to give up the battle, this wish should be understood and respected. But removing pain
can change all that! And initiative and determination to conquer cancer can return. Try to switch from morphine to codeine and then to
non-prescription pain killers--even if you must qauadruple the number of tablets. It is often difficult to move from the addictive drugs
(morphine and codeine) to the non-addictive varieties. But remind yourself why you were put on them–your “case” was considered
hopless. The side effect of morphine, inability to thrive, was not considered important anymore.
Doctors routinely do not tell the patient or family when they have given up on them. A prescription of morphine is your clue! Switch
as soon as you can to regular pain killers. Try to mix several pain killers so less of any one is required. Also, try alternative pain killers. The pain is caused mainly by bacteria. There is very little contribution from other causes. The simple act of pulling infected teeth
can reduce the pain to half within hours even though the pain is in a distant part of the body, far away from the teeth. Streptococcus
bacteria play the major role in producing pain. They reside in numerous little pockets all over our body, even if we consider ourselves
“well,” making phenol. When the phenol can no longer be detoxified at some location, it builds up to produce pain.
All our painful locations have streptococcus bacteria living there! Streptococcus bacteria killers include cayenne pepper, inositol,
ozonated water, and oregano oil (Oreganum vulgare), and zapping. Take ½ tsp. inositol in ¼ cup water; it is sweet tasting. Oregano oil
may be taken as 3 drops placed in an empty capsule for moderate pain; 20 drops for severe pain, followed by some bread.
Repeat 3 times a day if on morphine. The cayenne dose must be worked up gradually to get to a dosage of six capsules three times a
day for three days in a row. Once you make progress killing streptococcus, you must hold onto those gains.
Cancer
179
The underlying reason for having streptococcus colonies is often due to the presence of asbestos or lanthanide metals, namely, local lack
of immune power. Our major source of asbestos is food that has rolled along old asbestos-containing conveyor belts. Sticky foods like
sugar pick it up and spread it to all sweetened foods in the marketplace. Wherever a minuscule tuft of asbestos lands in your body, there
is a location of low immunity because the local white blood cells become coated with ferritin, as previously mentioned. Streptococcus
can then grow unchallenged. Lanthanide metals ride along with fruit and vegetable dyes used to intensify their color, and with pesticides.
The most polluted dye, Fast Green, penetrates bananas, grapefruit, eggplants, etc., bringing you thulium, lanthanum, and gadolinium
in large quantities. Streptococcus infects us by riding along with the common parasite, rabbit fluke, in the same way as Clostridium.
This fluke is smaller than a pinhead and the eggs are everywhere in dirt. Plain washing does get off most of it, but tiny amounts remain.
The small amount that is stuck in crevices or remains glued to the food we eat is important to us now, although it does not make ordinary
people sick or feel pain. Unfortunately, as we age, we lose the very hydrochloric acid that can kill this parasite and its bacteria in our
stomachs. In this way, our immunity sinks and we acquire more and more colonies of streptococcus—and more and more aches and
pains. A newborn baby is susceptible too, due to immature immunity and is fed only sterilized food for its safety. The cancer patient
is most susceptible of all, and with every mouthful of non-sterile food, receives another dose of rabbit fluke.
Streptococcus does not have special needs, such as Clostridium does—it colonizes wherever there is the slightest opportunity: in traumatized joints, in organs with asbestos lodged in them, in ears after infections, in hearts that are parasitized, and in tumorous organs.
As soon as you stop reinfecting with rabbit fluke, and zap your streptococcus, or kill them with the items mentioned, pain will stop,
whether it is in the bones, abdomen, chest or head, or any other location. Soon your body is cleared of them except for those that are
marooned in your tumors. After the tumors are drained and shrunk, all pain stays away until you reinfect. If you are in pain, this is
the most compelling reason to sterilize you food as you would for a baby. Many other varieties of bacteria are found at tumor sites or
locations of pain, but these are more easily eliminated. Many are common food bacteria:
· Shigella sonnei, food origin
· Rhizobium meliloti, food origin
· Shigella flexneri, food origin
· Rhizobium leguminosarum, only with Ascaris
· Shigella dysenteria, food origin
· Lactobacillus casei, food origin
· Salmonella paratyphi, food origin
· Lactobacillus acidophilus, food origin
· Salmonella typhimurium, food origin
· Streptomyces griseus, only with tapeworm larvae
· Salmonella enteriditis, food origin
· Streptomyces albus, only with tapeworm larvae
· E. coli, food origin
· Streptomyces venezuelae, only with tapeworm larvae
· Staphylococcus aureus, dental origin
· Mycobacterium avium/cellulare, only with Ascaris
Common food bacteria eaten at mealtime can find their way to your tumors and to your joints or muscles, wherever you have pain!
Immune protection by your white blood cells is lacking there. Normally, even harmful food bacteria simply pass along and out of the
digestive tract. Yet, for a cancer patient they can escape from the digestive tract and enter the body. The protective lymph nodes and
white blood cells in the lining of the intestinal tract have lost their immune power. You will get it back as you recover. Until then, the
bacteria, besides the parasites, found in the common dirt must not be allowed to enter with food and invade you. They make amines
that remove the “brakes” on cell division. They also make ammonia. Ammonia is extremely toxic to living cells, giving you fatigue
and illness besides. Some bacteria make growth factors and ‘cancer antigens.” If you have extreme pain, or even moderate pain, this
is your clue that bacteria are still arriving. You can assume you are eating them!
Cancer Factors and Prevention
The following factors have been shown to create an imbalance in people susceptible to developing cancer:
Sunlight
Today, more ultraviolet radiation is present in sunlight due to the holes in the ozone layer. Also, our indoor-oriented lifestyles mean that
our regular exposure to sun has diminished. Therefore, when we do get the chance to be in the sun, we often go overboard (spending
a week at a sunny resort, lying on the beach, and getting sunburned). This excessive stress on the body can be a factor in developing
skin cancer, and perhaps other types of cancer as well.
Electromagnetic Field Exposure
Commonly known as EMF, this phenomenon is the result of electrical currents, to which we are exposed daily. This is due to the
prevalence of electrical equipment in our environment. EMFs arise from electrical wiring in the homes, televisions, computers, video
terminals, microwaves, and overhead lights among others. Electricity is everywhere and is an enormous part of our lifestyle. EMFs
have been shown to create imbalance in our biological makeup, and could be another cancer-causing agent.
Critical Condition
Sick Building Syndrome
180
We live in houses full of chemicals. There are chemicals in the carpet, formaldehyde in the wood and molds in the basement. All of
these lead to imbalances in the immune system. Once this occurs, the immune system is unable to support the normal detoxification of
the body’s systems and the body ends up retaining the toxic chemicals it has absorbed through the environment. This buildup of toxic
materials in the body may result in all sorts of illnesses, including cancer.
Radiation
We are exposed to radiation at many different levels, through X-rays and even through the television. Research has shown that radiologists can develop high rates of cancer, which researchers have linked to their proximity to X-ray equipment. Working in nuclear plants
has been shown to present a cancer risk as well. We have all heard stories about the nuclear power plant Chernobyl, in Russia, where
the risk of thyroid cancer is 100 times greater compared to other populations.
Pesticides and Herbicides
Chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and insecticides are widely used today in our foods. These chemicals mimic estrogen, and
have been shown in many studies to increase the risk of cancer. Some chemicals that have been banned in this country such as DDT,
find their way back into our food supply through importation of crops from third-world countries where the chemicals are heavily used.
Industrial Toxins
A number of heavy metal, highly toxic chemicals are released by industrial processes. These industrial toxins have been linked to many
different kinds of cancers. In Mexico, a higher rate of breast cancers has been noted among people living near toxic waste dumps.
Water Pollution
Our water has been polluted with chlorine and fluoride, as well as with parasites. All of these cause cancer in experimental animals.
Smoking
Approximately 30% of cancer deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to smoking. Many people are diagnosed with cancer and treated with
chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, and in spite of this, continue to smoke. They often later develop cancer in another part of the body.
Hormone Therapy
Hormones, especially estrogen, have been shown to increase the incidence of cancer. In particular, the prolonged use of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women has been associated with increased risk of breast cancer. One
study found that women taking birth control pills had a 300% higher incidence of cervical dysplasia (usually benign), and changes in
the shape of the cervix that are early indicators of possible cervical cancer later.
According to a Swedish study, post-menopausal women between the ages of 55 and 59 taking estrogen therapy for five years have a
40% higher risk of developing breast cancer. Among women ages 60 and 64, the risk was 70% higher.
Drugs
Many drugs and treatments prescribed today have an immune-suppressive effect. These include common antibiotics, vaccinations,
aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen and steroids. All of these reduce the body’s ability to fight against disease, thereby paving the way
for imbalance, and perhaps helping cancer cells to proliferate.
Food Additives
There are around 3,000 chemicals added to our foods regularly. These include, aspartame, saccharine and other artificial sweeteners;
aflatoxins in milk, cereal, peanuts and corn (associated with liver, stomach, kidney cancer), and dyes—especially yellow dye, blue dye
#2, propygallad and red dye #3. Many of these chemicals have been associated with various types of cancer, which is why we should
be concerned about the safety and purity of our food supply.
Mercury Toxicity
Mercury is a heavy metal that has been used in dentistry for a long time. Many studies have shown that mercury poisoning can lead to
deterioration of the body’s immune system, ad thus cause diseases like cancer, kidney dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurological diseases.
Nutritional Deficiencies
According to one study, inadequate levels of selenium in the body increase the risk of cancer. For many in the study, when selenium
was added to the diet, there were fewer incidences of prostate cancer. Also, excessive amounts of fat and carbohydrates, as well as
regular consumption of highly refined and chemical-laden foods, are not healthy. The combined effects of nutritional deficiencies and
poor diet choices may be a factor in today’s higher incidence of cancer.
Chronic Stress
181
Cancer
Numerous studies have linked stress with susceptibility to cancer. Chronic stress leads to abnormal adrenal function, thereby suppressing
the immune system, which can trigger abnormal cell growth and thus cancer in the body. Also, people who are unable to handle stress
accumulate more toxins, thus increasing their risk of getting cancer. Intestinal toxicity, digestive impairment, parasites, microorganisms
and free radical damage have all been linked to the development of cancer.
In 1971 when the U.S. declared war on cancer, scientists still hadn’t identified the immune defense force army, which was already
fighting that particular war, along with many others. All the doctors, scientists, the American Cancer Society, call cancer a disease.
Cancer is not contagious, it doesn’t have an incubation period, there is no foreign invader that has been identified. Cancer is not a
disease–it’s a symptom of a naturally occurring condition in the body. As long as they have cancer misclassified, it will continue
to remain both their biggest challenge and a major scientific mystery. Scientists, medical doctors, authors, mass media reporters,
even cancer patients, think of cancer as a whole group of diseases, because they have cancer in the wrong category.
Cancer is the scientist’s playground. Because cancer kills, scientists have been able to request and receive billions of dollars in grants
from the federal government, non-profit health-oriented organizations, major corporations, and private sources. The New England
Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. –Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains
“undefeated,” with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been
largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment.
– John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept;. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University.
The late H.B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading U.S. cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American
Cancer Society in 1969 that no study has proved that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his
studies proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of life than treated
ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again.
The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet wrote, “If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the medical
profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer.” Noting that conventional therapies–chemotherapy, radiation and surgery–had
been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to “challenge medical dogma and redirect research
efforts along more fruitful lines.”
Phenomenal laboratories and the latest diagnostic equipment have been purchased and paid for by donations from some of the nation’s largest corporations. Today, our medical scientists should know more about cancer than any other health problem, considering
the number of dollars that have been invested in research. Far more money has been spent on the study of cancer than on anything
else. Cancer screening has not resulted in people living any longer. Millions of rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, and other
laboratory animals have been injected with cancerous material, or implanted with growing malignancies. Our scientists have watched
cancer develop, grow, divide, multiply and proliferate. We have compared our cancer cells with the cancer cells of all other countries.
Science has categorized cancer by appearance, size, location, origin, and speed of reproduction. It certainly appears that the nation’s
experts have studied everything there is to study as far as cancer is concerned. Our scientists should be able to tell us everything
there is to know about cancer by this time. They know, because all of this information you are now reading came from their studies! They
won’t share this information because the answer to cancer is so simple and so uncomplicated that they fear funding will dry up.
It is generally accepted in genetics that the genetic code within the DNA of all cells contains the program for how many times that cell
can divide and when that cell should die.
The process of natural cell death, called apoptosis, has been said to be controlled by the p53 gene which exists in all cells. This
gene is the reason we’re not all 20 feet tall and weigh a thousand lbs. When the cell’s lifespan has been fulfilled, the p53 gene initiates the process that results in the cell’s death. However, damage to the DNA of cells, specifically mutation of the p53 gene, can
prevent apoptosis and probably result in the uncontrolled division of cells that do not die. Normally, cells divide only when the
body needs more cells, but when cells divide when new cells are not needed, excess tissue will form, often in a mass called a tumor.
The p53 gene is also the protector of the DNA, because if harmful mutations do occur, the p53 gene is capable of fixing the situation by
initiating apoptosis. But if damage causes the p53 gene itself to become dysfunctional, the cell, unable to die, divides without control,
and with its replicates, forms tumors, and cancer is the likely result.
It is now believed that more than 50% of human cancers result specifically from damage to the p53 gene. Tumors can be either
benign or malignant. Malignant tumors are cancerous, and cancer cells can break away from these tumors and invade nearby tissue
and also enter the bloodstream and lymphatic system and spread to form new tumors in other parts of the body. Today, the term cancer
is applied whenever there is an abnormal proliferation of cells, even when no swelling or growth occurs.
Critical Condition
182
Examples include leukemia, abnormal blood-forming cells, and lymphoma, abnormal lymphatic cells. Although science calls these
conditions cancer, the term really doesn’t fit. Still not knowing what cancer really was, but uneasily aware that it was becoming more
and more prevalent, the medical detectives began classifying it according to its primary location, the speed of its growth, its ability to
spread, its individual symptoms, and its response to various types of treatment. The investigative scientists divided malignant tumors
into five main classifications, with many subdivisions in each group. All of this scientific, medical, and technical information has been
available to us for the last thirty to forty years. Our ignorance has already hurt, killed, and maimed millions of people, cost billions of dollars, and destroyed millions of lives. What we don’t know will continue to hurt us until we fully understand our physical
body and the miraculous way it defends itself.
Ignorance is a killer no matter how intelligent human scientists and doctors profess to be. Destroying Cancer Cells is only the
first step of 4 very important objectives. The holistic approach attacks cancer from 4 different angles:
1. Destroy anaerobic (Cancer) Cells
2. Improve the Immune System
3. Detoxify the Body (The Liver)
4. Reverse Acidosis (Low body pH)
Conventional Medicine has 3 different approaches to fighting Cancer.
1. Poison- Chemotherapy
2. Burn- Radiation
3. Slash- Surgery
In the holistic approach listed above, these three conventional treatments would fit in the section Destroy Cancer Cells. Cancer patients for many years have been told that these are their best and only options. Conventional Medicine doesn’t even concern itself
with the other parts of the holistic approach which involves returning a persons immune system function back to the level it once
functioned before cancer manifested, along with the importance of detoxification so that the immune system can return its focus to
destroying and eliminating disease instead of dealing with unnecessary waste and toxins that are polluting our bodies. Finally,
it is well documented that all cancer patients suffer from acidosis and therefore have created an anaerobic, low oxygen atmosphere
in their bodies that cancer loves.
In cancer research, success—expressed as a five-year survival rate—is established by comparing other forms and combinations of
treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates
of untreated patients and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is basically unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.
Early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that
improves the survival statistics.
William Steward Halstead, M.D., (1852 - 1922) the founder of Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore Maryland) became world famous
because of a mutilating surgical procedure he devised and performed on unfortunate women who had no alternatives. Dr. Halstead
developed the radical mastectomy in which the entire breast, the underarm lymph nodes, and a lot of muscles were surgically cut
away. He developed and performed this disfiguring operation on these desperate women not in hope of affecting a cure, which he
didn’t believe was possible, but under the impression that the best he could offer them was the opportunity to die in relative comfort.
Dr. Halstead mistakenly believed that cancer cells always spread directly from the tumor to neighboring tissue. He believed that if a
patient had a lump in her breast and also a lesion in the bone of one arm, then the whole bone had to be removed at the same time as
the breast was cut away.
This highly publicized operation became known as the Halstead Radical Mastectomy, or the “en block” resection. Researchers have said
it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this, they would most likely refuse surgery. In 1993, the editor
of the Lancet pointed out in an editorial entitled, “Breast cancer: have we lost our way?” stated that, despite various modifications
of breast cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He acknowledged that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle
breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion in all truth has lost its way.
At the same time, he rejected the view of those who believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to
just below the rate where it kills the patient. He asked, “Would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?”
Basically, all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term survival
rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates.
Even worse, Michael Baum, MD, a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk
of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to accelerating the spread of cancer by stimulating the formation of
metastases in other parts of the body.
Cancer
183
An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast cancer live longer than treated women, and the
recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer. This conclusion confirms a finding by Earnst Krokowski,
a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical intervention,
including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer. Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased
number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the
immune system.
This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is the metastases that kill, while primary tumors in general, and those in the breast
in particular, can be relatively harmless. These findings have been confirmed by recent research which shows that surgery, even if
unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end.
This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was
investigated in the first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years, there was no difference in the survival rates
of those who had surgery and the controls who did not have surgery, but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as
impotence or incontinence.
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen earned the first Nobel Prize ever awarded for Physics in 1901 for his 1895 discovery of x-rays. When
Roentgen discovered that x-rays penetrate the tissues of the body like a light beam, this new discovery was quickly recognized as a
superior tool for the diagnosis of broken bones and other internal problems. As time passed, science discovered that x-rays also
destroy cells. When a tumor was bombarded with x-rays, the tumor shrank as its cells were blasted out of existence. That means that
the healthy cells that were in the path of the x-rays were also destroyed. X-rays come from a cathode ray tube, which is man-made.
But the gamma rays given off by cobalt and cesium have the same ability.
The x-ray machines developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s operated with a low voltage of 250 KV. These machines resulted in a significant burning of the skin’s surface, making treatment very difficult to bear. The medical experts universally agree that surgery and
radiation therapy are both localized forms of treatment, which, unfortunately, must kill normal cells in order to kill cancer cells.
That’s like throwing a hand grenade into a roomful of school children because a terrorist is holding them hostage inside. And what if
the tumor isn’t radiosensitive? Before 1916, cancer mouse models did not exist.
It was impossible to test possible cancer drugs for efficacy before giving them to a human cancer patient. So a mouse ideal for cancer
research was developed in the laboratory. This was a special strain of mice with part of their immune system removed. Because this
strain of hairless mice doesn’t have a normally functioning immune system, a human tumor can actually be transplanted under the skin
and grown in one of the little creatures. Almost all cancer research has been done on mice that have been genetically stripped their
natural immune capabilities. That’s like taking the rifles away from the army and then sending them out to fight a battle to the death.
Treating a typical cancer patient today runs about $100,000. A bone marrow transplant can cost $150,000. If the enormous
amount of money spent on cancer treatment was actually saving lives and sparing human suffering, then we could consider the costs
worthwhile.
The Full Treatment
Virginia Livingston Wheeler, a remarkable cancer researcher and therapist, in her book, Cancer: A New Breakthrough, gives an account of one of the many patients she saw who had come to her only after receiving the full medical treatment for breast cancer. “After
discovering a small breast lump, she had radical mastectomy. None of the lymph nodes removed from the armpit was involved; all of
the cancer had been successfully removed.
To make extra sure that there was no regrowth in the scars, she received radiation treatment, and also her ovaries were taken out. “To
her dismay, a year later several small nodules appeared in the old breast scar. Again she received radiation. More lumps appeared on
the neck that called for still more radiation. In addition, she received male hormone therapy, resulting in acne and coarse facial hair.
Still the nodules came back. Now she received chemotherapy with the usual side effects. Before her hair could regrow, pain in her
bones was diagnosed as bone cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy was expected to help.
However, several months later the bone lesions became worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended and performed.
Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for another year. After that, the removal of her pituitary gland might give her a further
three to six months to live.
By now, her faith in her medical advisers was sufficiently shaken that she came to Dr. Livingston for help. She asked to be examined
without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare him the agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken
with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she whispered: ‘Doctor, shall I kill myself?’”
Critical Condition
Mercury & Sulfur
184
Many scientific studies have been done on cancer that describe metabolic processes related to the production or causation of tumors that
involved thiols/sulfur/sulfhydryls and the transsulfuration pathways. A thiol is any organic compound containing a univalent radical
called a sulfhydryl and identified by the symbol -SH (sulfur-hydrogen). A thiol can attract one atom of mercury in the ionized form
and have it combine withitself. Because it is a radical, it can enter into or leave this combination without any change.
Mercury and lead both have a great affinity for sulfur and sulfhydryls and are capable of affecting the transsulfuration pathways
in the body. While mercury, in itself, is not considered a carcinogen, it does participate in a cascade of biochemical events that can
ultimately produce cancer. Healthy persons routinely defend, contain, or destroy cancerous cells that form in our body throughout
our lifetime. Therefore, foreign substances, such as mercury and lead, that laffect this normal protective biochemical function might,
by a continuous chronic onslaught on the immune defenses for years, make the body vulnerable to cancer and other major diseases.
Mercury can inhibit or modify how the body uses ATP, zinc, selenium, rubidium, vitamins A and C, and calcium.
Cancer cells have altered sodium and calcium transport and reduced oxygen transport through the cell membrane. The oxygen
deficiency within the cell reduces or eliminates the ability of the cell to oxidize glucose to carbon dioxide, which in turn, results in
glucose being converted to lactic acid, lowering cellular pH into the acid range. These combined effects radically change cell metabolism and ultimately DNA replication.
Drugs in five major groups have been shown either to function as vitamin B6 antagonists, or to increase the turnover of vitamin B6
in the body. Drugs in ten major groups have been shown to affect the absorption of folic acid; to act as folate antagonists; or to
increase the turnover or loss of folate from the body. Drugs in four groups have been shown to affect the absorption of vitamin
B12. Depletion of one vitamin can affect the requirement for another vitamin. Mercury can cause similar deficiencies or metabolic
changes in the way the body handles these same three vitamins. One of the drugs that affects vitamin B6 and folate is oral
contraceptives. The pill can also deplete vitamins C, B2, E, and zinc. The nutritional status of a woman taking the pill and who is
also chronically inhaling mercury from her mercury amalgam dental fillings will be extremely challenged. Mercury can alter sodium
and calcium transport and also reduces the amount of oxygen transported. Mercury competes with calcium for cellular binding sites
and, through this mechanism, can decrease cellular calcium or increase extracellular calcium. Mercury binds avidly to rubidium and
selenium. Decreases in available selenium can also reduce available GSH-Px (glutathione peroxidase), which in turn causes a proliferation of free radical cell damage.
Mercury, at extremely low levels, can inhibit the respiratory burst of killer-cell leukocytes, reducing their effectiveness in controlling
cancer cell proliferation. At the same time, mercury and lead also reduce available intracellular oxygen, leading to an increase in
production of lactic acid and a reduction in pH, both conditions conducive to proliferaton of cancer cells. Cancer cells have a usual
growth pattern of doubling approximately every 100 days.
In the case of breast cancer, which strikes 120,000 women each year, if you have had cancer for three and a half months, you would
have two cancer cells in your breast. The growth is microscopic and a pathologist would be unable to find it. At the end of six years,
a breast tumor would contain one million cells, and it would be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. The divalent ions
of beryllium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, mercury, and lead are stable forms of elements which may mimic essential divalent
ions such as magnesium, calcium, iron, copper, or zinc. These ions may complex small molecules, enzymes, and nucleic acids in such
a way that the normal activity of these species is altered. Free radicals may be produced in the presence of these metal ions which
damage critical cellular molecules.
The liver is one of the most important organs in the body when it comes to detoxifying or getting rid of foreign substances or
toxins. Glutathione, which is the most abundant sulfhydryl in the body, functions to chelate and detoxify heavy metals; mercury and
lead both have been shown to combine or complex; with glutathione. Once complexed together, the bile becomes a major route
used by the body to excrete the complex, thereby reducing the amount of glutathione available.
Xenobiotic drugs can also cause a reduction in its availability, through complexing and excretion, the same as for mercury and
lead. Cysteine is the limiting factor in the biosynthesis of glutathione. Cysteine is a precursor in the formation of glutathione. If an
adequate supply of cysteine is not readily available, the rate of production of glutathione will be reduced. The primary source of the
sulfur portion of cysteine is methionine. Cysteine cannot be taken up by hepatocytes (liver cells) easily, whereas methionine is taken
up more readily, and is then metabolized into S-adenysylmethionine, homocysteine, cystathionine, and cysteine.
Therefore, if the availability of methionine is reduced, not only will the capability of the liver to detoxify be impaired, but there will
also be less glutathione available to combine with foreign substances. Methionine metabolism and transmethylation are frequently
altered in cancer cells. The alteration is often expressed as an inability of the cancer cells to grow when methionine is replaced by
homocysteine in the culture medium, a condition that allows the growth of normal cells. This is termed methionine dependence. Methionine dependence may reflect an overall imbalance in transmethylation which results in the overmethylation of some substances
and undermethylation of others within cancer cells.
Cancer
185
Deficiency of methionine can, in itself, cause liver cancer without the presence of a carcinogen, and the deficiency of methionine can
permit a heavy metal to cause toxic effects. The ultimate effect of the alteration of methionine/transmethylation metabolism may be
the disruption of the regulations of genes involved in the oncogenic process. The known protective effect of methionine against cancer
may be due to prevention of altered methionine/transmethylation metabolism or compensation of the altered metabolism.
The uptake of methionine is significantly less and the synthesis of nuclear proteins is depressed in the livers of zinc-deficient animals.
When the chronic lifetime inhalation and absorption of mercury from amalgam fillings is coupled with chronic lead exposure; the
routine intake of both prescription and non-prescription drugs; and poor dietary practices and/or high-fish diets rich in methylmercury,
the effect on an individual’s nutriture, and ultimately on the body’s immune system and other defense mechanisms, can be devastating.
Iron and Cancer
Aging is accompanied by an accumulation of iron in the body. Eighty percent of iron in the body resides in the red blood cells. During
childhood, iron is being utilized to make new red blood cells. Red blood cells are dying and being replaced at a rate of 2 million per
second in adults. In growing children, the demand to make new red blood cells is greater than in adulthood and all available iron is
used to produce new blood cells. The risk for cancer is low during the growth years. The demand for iron, to make new red blood
cells, slows once full growth is achieved. Women delay the accumulation of iron by virtue of the fact they lose iron during monthly
menstrual flow, or donate iron to their unborn babies.
The slow accumulation of iron, after full growth in males (after age 18 or so), or when menstruation ceases in females (menopause or
early hysterectomy), gradually increases the risk of cancer. More specifically, females dump about 30 milligrams of iron per month
through menstruation, whereas males accumulate about 1 milligram of iron per day after they reach full growth (after about
age 18). By middle age, men have an excess of 3,000-5,000 milligrams of iron compared to women and experience twice the rate of
cancer, diabetes, heart disease and infections. Tumor cells, bacteria, viruses and fungi all depend upon iron as their primary growth
factor. The accumulation of iron in non-menstruating women either from early hysterectomy or menopause increases the risk of cancer.
Loss of iron control is a hallmark of cancer. Following is a sample of the expansive list of reports that link iron with cancer:
· Tumors grow better in an iron-rich environment. In an animal study conducted in 1989, 19 rats were injected with iron daily for 3
months. Nine animals produced tumors while all animals in a control group that received no iron remained free of malignancy.
· Alcohol consumption (with the exception of moderate red wine intake) increases the risk of cancer. Alcohol increases iron absorption from foods.
· Cigarettes are widely known to increase the risk of lung cancer. Cigarette smoke contains high quantities of polyhydroxybenzenes
that can mobilize iron from its storage protein, ferritin. Tobacco and cigarette paper contain significant amounts of iron. A onepack-a-day smoker might inhale enough iron to promote tumors in the lung.
· Calorie-restricted diets are gaining attention for their ability to extend the lifespan. In a controlled animal study, a calorie-restricted
diet reduced the risk for breast tumors, whereas a calorie-restricted, but iron-sufficient diet did not.
· Red meat consumption is linked with colon, breast, bladder, endometrial, ovarian and other cancers. Red meat provides highly
absorbable heme iron.
· Leukemia is cancer of the blood. Eighty percent of iron is stored in red blood cells. A pint of whole blood carries 200-300 milligrams of iron. So it is no coincidence that disturbed iron metabolism is a major cause of leukemia. Iron chelators are used to treat
leukemia, a disease that occurs more frequently in males who have higher iron stores than females.
· If iron is a major factor in the onset of cancer then iron overloaded individuals (hemochromotosis) would experience a high risk
for cancer. Indeed, iron overloaded individuals are at 200-times greater risk to develop liver cancer.
The liver is the organ where excess iron is stored. Bloodletting, which is a method of reducing iron stores in the body, is used as a
treatment for liver cancer. Cancer often spreads (metastasizes) to the iron-rich liver.
· Those individuals who repeatedly donate blood, and thus reduce iron stores in their body, are at less risk for cancer.
· Daily intake of 1.3 grams of aspirin can cause fecal blood loss approximately equivalent to donation of a pint of blood every 12
weeks. Aspirin is known to reduce the risk of cancer, likely via its ability to slowly reduce stored iron levels in the body.
· High-fiber diets are not always correlated with low frequency of colon cancer. Only whole grains that contain the iron-binder IP6
phytic acid appear to inhibit colon cancer. Whole grains, but not refined cereals that have the bran removed, reduce the risk of cancer.
· Adults who consume the most iron and copper more than double their risk for colon cancer.
· The administration of iron Dextran intravenous solution increases the risk of cancer.
· Exposure to inhaled asbestos fibers is related to lung cancer. The most carcinogenic forms of asbestos, crocidolite and amosite,
contain up to 27% iron by weight as part of their crystal structure.
· Iron overload causes chronic vitamin C deficiency since excess iron accelerates the oxidative catabolism of ascorbic acid. Low
vitamin C levels are linked with high cancer mortality rates.
· Breast cancer after the onset of menopause begins when estrogen, released from adipose (fat) cells in the breast, sends a signal
to release iron.
· Traditional Chinese medical doctors report when they mix herbal decoctions in metallic pots (aluminum, iron, copper) their herbal
remedy is less likely to inhibit gastric cancer. Glass vessels are superior.
· Iron foundry workers are at increased risk to develop cancer.
Critical Condition
186
Conventional Cancer Treatments Control Iron
Many of the conventional or alternative treatments to prevent or treat cancer involve the control of iron.
· Aspirin—causes small amount of blood loss which in turn causes loss of iron
· Vegetarian/macrobiotic diet—limits iron supply; provides non-heme iron which is not as readily absorbed as iron from meat
· Exercise—sweats out iron
· High fiber diets (seeds, bran)—bind iron to phytic acid (IP6)
· Bioflavonoids—Green tea, quercetin, grape seed, others—iron binding
· Colostrum—contains iron binder (phytic acid-IP6)
· Fasting—no iron consumption
· Wormwood (Artemesia)—chelates iron
· Adriamycin cancer drug—iron binding/releasing
· Soy—contains iron binder (phytic acid-IP6)
· Gallium, indium, cisplatin—bind to iron transfer protein, transferring
Iron Chelators
Iron chelators are useful as anti-tumor agents. Researchers indicate “The development of chelators as anticancer agents is…one with
extraordinary potential to impact human cancer.” Iron chelators have been tested in lab dish studies of cancer cells, in animal and
human studies, so one cannot say iron chelators are unproven. They are widely used. The primary iron chelator used in anti-cancer
treatment, Desferal (desferrioxamine), can retard tumors. However, Desferal has a modest effect because of its poor ability to permeate
cell membranes and chelate iron pools within the cell.
Adriamycin (doxorubicin), an antibiotic drug often used for cancer treatment is an iron binder. One of the major drawbacks of Adriamycin is that it often results in severe damage to the heart. In certain circumstances this drug can release iron from its storage protein,
ferritin, resulting in the heart damage. The beating force of the heart is reduced by 50% with the anti-cancer drug Adriamycin, but only
18% when the drug and iron-binding bioflavonoids are used together. Ferriprox (deferiprone) is the world’s first and only orally active
iron chelating drug, which is effective and inexpensive to produce, but has similar toxicity to other chelating drugs.
The obvious choice among available iron chelators is phytic acid (inositol hexaphosphate or IP6), IP6 phytic acid as a dietary supplement, usually extracted form rice bran, is widely available, inexpensive, and largely without toxicity. Its problem is that it is not a drug.
It is a dietary supplement and has no pharmaceutical company to promote its use by oncologists. IP6 phytic acid, the iron chelator
found in seeds and bran, is unique among antioxidants because it both binds to iron and reduces the affinity of oxygen to hemoglobin.
There is no other antioxidant like it. It is the only antioxidant that can completely quench the hydroxyl radical.
Stem Cells
A stem cell is a name given to an undifferentiated cell. You have more than 200 different types of cells in your body: blood, bone,
fat, muscle, brain, etc. These differentiated cells are branched from matured stem cells. At one time you were a tiny collection of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) that became you. In theory these ESCs are pluripotent, capable of maturing into any cell. This process that
eventually grew into you is so miraculous that many scientists theorized they could harvest ESCs from aborted babies and cure any
and everything, and grow new organs. Unfortunately, they soon found out it wasn’t that simple. The same factors that cause an embryo
or fetus to grow so fast unleash virulent cancers in adult humans and experimental animals.
The hype for fetal cell cures cruelly raised, then crushed, the hopes of Parkinson’s patients. One U.S. experiment produced “disastrous”
results after fetal cells from aborted babies were transplanted into the brains of Parkinson’s disease sufferers. Five of 20 patients were
left with dyskenesia (uncontrollable and untreatable jerky movements), which the scientists said were caused by the new dopamineproducing cells going into overdrive. The severe side effects, the “absolutely devastating” results meant fetal transplant experiments have
to go right back to the drawing board, said Paul Greene, a neurologist at Columbia University in New York, and one of the researchers.
The trial, conducted by a team from Columbia University, involved transplanting fetal brain tissue into the brains of 20 long-term
Parkinson’s sufferers. Some of the patients showed no improvement in symptoms. For others, the improvements were slight. But after
one year, many of the patients who had shown the most improvement began to develop severe dyskenesia. The Columbia team said
the embryonic cells had gone into overdrive, and were producing too much dopamine. There is no way to turn these cells off. Fetal
cell experiments were such failures, researchers looked to start living human embryos to harvest ESCs.
All embryonic ESC experiments were so disastrous that no private investor wanted to risk their own money for ESC research, so they
turned to the taxpayers to pay for ESC experiments. There is currently no law preventing privately funded ESC experiments. The entire
political furor over ESCs is a fight to get billions of dollars from taxpayers. However, the good news is there have been a number of
successes using adult stem cells (ASCs). Contrary to the ESC Frankenstein disasters, Dennis Turner’s Parkinson’s was stopped and
reversed by Dr. Michael F. Levesque in a procedure using Turner’s own cultured brain cells. Previously, doctors in France and Hong
Kong had similar successes using bone marrow stem cells.
Cancer
187
Any stem cells, other than autologous (made by your own body) cells, require immuno-suppressive drugs, so by far the best way to
maintain health and repair your own body is to use your own stem cells. But adult stem cells are extremely rare; that’s why they
are extracted and cultivated. There is much evidence that our bodies should produce adult stem cells in abundance; but most of us today are deficient in stem cells because our diets are deficient in certain factors that used to be common, but are virtually extinct today.
Healthy cells should be covered with a lush “forest” of complex glycoforms, which are the “antennas” for intercellular communications. Scientists rarely see healthy cells. Typically they see scraggily wisps, so when they see a healthy cell they don’t recognize it.
When these cells were first observed by Dr. McDaniel, an explosive, ‘Gee! Look what I’ve found!’ was made to senior technologists.
As a result of such an exclamation, for over a year the unclassified cells were called “G” cells in their laboratory. When they measured
the before and after stem cell counts in the blood, virtually none are detected prior to glyconutrients. Within a week of consuming
glyconutrients, trillions of stem cells can be found! Clinical studies prove that glyconutrients stimulate the body’s production
of healing stem cells! Glyconutrients restore cellular communication allowing your body to actually heal and repair itself—anything
else is just treating symptoms, not the problem.”
Stem Cells: The Silver Connection
We continually pick up the newspaper or turn on the news and hear about the latest research on producing “stem cells.” It may therefore
come as quite a surprise to many to find that some of the leading medical researchers have proven that the highest-quality stem cells
can be easily produced, both artificially and where and when needed. Not only that, but it has been proven that the human body and
the animal body can predict exactly the number of stem cells needed to heal a wound. Under the right conditions, the body can produce
exactly that number, use them all and have no extra left over!
Amazing! Still more surprising is that you can easily do the same thing yourself at home. So what is the big push for stem cells all
about? The real search is for a stem cell production process that can be patented and thereby controlled and sold for a huge amount of
money by the drug companies. If these companies can patent the process of producing these stem cells and then store, ship and inject
them according to complex procedures and make big money in the process, and if the knowledge of how to produce them can be kept
out of the hands of the common people, they can hold the fear of life or death over the sick and injured and dole the cells out at their
price. They are the wizards holding the wands of healing.
Normally a cell can only reproduce as the kind of cell it is. A skin cell can only reproduce itself as another skin cell, but only of the
skin layer that it is from. A heart cell can only reproduce a heart cell. A stem cell is a cell that has no tissue signature. It can become a
skin cell, a heart cell, a lung cell, a bone cell, etc. It can become anything. To understand the subject better, you need to know the difference between stem cells, undifferentiated cells and dedifferentiated cells. Stem cells have not become any particular type of cells.
They usually come from an embryo, a fetus or an umbilical cord.
Undifferentiated cells come from bone marrow, primarily from the femur. Dedifferentiated cells are cells that have been differentiated
as red blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells, etc., but have changed into undifferentiated cells. Now they can become any type of cells
needed. The only difference with the three types is their history. They are all the same as stem cells and have the DNA of the donor. For
the sake of simplicity, they will all be called “stem cells” herein, except where the difference is important to understanding the subject.
Some parents have produced an embryo for the sole purpose of providing stem cells for a member of the family. Laboratories routinely
produce embryos for making stem cells. The use of embryos and fetuses to source stem cells has become a hotly debated issue. The
embryo may be killed in order to obtain the stem cells, which then can be used in other humans if the DNA is a close enough match.
The DNA is a big problem in that it is foreign to the stem cells recipient. A stem cell is like a donated organ: the immune system tends
to reject it; therefore the immune system must usually be suppressed in order to accept it. And like a donated organ, the stem cell reproduces with its still-foreign DNA and the recipient’s immune system will probably have to be suppressed indefinitely.
A strong immune system is certainly one of our most valuable assets. One of our highest goals health-wise is to build a strong immune
system. Are we then to trade our immune system for the truly fantastic healing quality of stem cells and become permanently dependent
on medication as a replacement for our immune system?
The body has some undifferentiated cells coming from the bone marrow and other tissues all the time. So, in some hospitals, doctors are
experimenting with separating these cells out of their patients’ blood and making an embryo from the nucleus of each cell for implantation, or freezing the cells and saving them for planned future use. It’s a very expensive process. However, assuming these cells are not
damaged during freezing, they are of the patients’ own DNA and the process has produced some impressive results. These stem cells can
then be injected where needed. But this process can be expensive and time consuming—and the patients may not have much time left.
Recently, scientists in Wisconsin and Japan have reported success in taking some cells from a patient and injecting a genetically altered
virus into them to produce cells which behave almost like stem cells and have the DNA of the patient. But so far, the cells thus produced
are not the same as the patient’s and it is doubtful that we will ever be sure that they are. Will they then reproduce defective cells?
Critical Condition
188
It seems that without stem cells, the body can only heal by the tissue growing from the existing tissue of the same kind. Where a lot of
tissue is missing, the healing tissue must grow from what is still there. Thus, where a large patch of skin is missing, the wound must
heal from the edges inward. In an effort to heal where proper healing is not possible, scar tissue develops. Scar tissue is composed of
deformed cells, and when they are worn out they reproduce themselves in the deformed condition. Thus, scars usually last indefinitely.
But there is a solution.
The Silver Magic Wand
You can make as many of your own dedifferentiated cells as you need! And they will contain your own DNA. It is very simple and
easy. In the presence of silver ions, produced by “Bredig’s process,” the body dedifferentiates as many cells as it needs!
In his co-authored best-seller The Body Electric (1985), noted orthopedic surgeon and research scientist Robert O. Becker, MD, reviews his experiments in attempting to regenerate full limbs in humans. Although he ran out of research funds before he succeeded
in fully accomplishing this, he did establish much in understanding healing processes. Basically, in seven years of research he found
that a very low DC electrical current, run between a positive electrode and a negative electrode, produced a healing effect in bones.
He experimented with several metals for his electrodes: gold, platinum, titanium, stainless steel and silver. The results with the silver
were many times more effective than with any of the others. He proceeded to experiment to find out why. His findings were that the
DC electrical current was drawing positive silver ions off the positive electrode, and that it was the silver ions that increased the healing
so dramatically. Dr Becker showed that in the presence of sufficient silver ions, the body would produce all the stem cells it needed.
Without the silver, it could not do so.
The technique known as “Bredig’s process,” invented by Georg Bredig in the 1880s, is the basic method by which is produced the
product called “Colloidal Ionic Silver.” Medical science insists that a red blood cell cannot dedifferentiate because it has no nucleus.
That seems like an obvious conclusion. Dr Becker was of this opinion to begin with—and yet, when he studied the changes in the
production of stem cells in fine increments, he found that most of the stem cells came from red blood cells!
An extended study revealed that a red blood cell has a nucleus before becoming a red blood cell. In the process of dedifferentiating,
the red blood cell first redevelops its nucleus and then becomes dedifferentiated. Thus, when a scab forms over a wound it has all the
potential cells to dedifferentiate, but commonly these cells do not do so. However, in the presence of silver, they do dedifferentiate.
In The Body Electric, Dr Becker devotes a whole chapter, “The Silver Wand,” to the effects of “the amazing silver ion.” The “silver
wand” he refers to is his silver electrode. On page 175, Dr Becker states: “We may have only scratched the surface of positive silver’s
medical brilliance. Already it’s an amazing tool. It stimulates bone-forming cells, cures the most stubborn infections of all kinds of
bacteria, and stimulates healing in skin and other soft tissues. …There may be other marvels latent in this magic caduceus...
Whatever its precise mode of action may be, the electrically generated silver ion can produce enough cells for human blastemas [the
material that is produced from stem cells and becomes the healthy healed tissue]; it has restored my belief that full regeneration of
limbs, and perhaps other body parts, can be accomplished in humans…”
Dr Becker makes the clear statement that, with silver, “the technique makes it possible to produce large numbers of dedifferentiated
cells” (page 175). Note also that these “dedifferentiated cells” (stem cells) would be of the patient’s own DNA. If this is true then
why all the struggle to produce stem cells from embryos—and with the associated moral questions as well as expensive techniques?
Could it be because it is so simple and safe that anyone can do it, even at home? It is already being done by thousands of people in
the alternative health field without their realizing it. If the common people ever wake up to this, the medical establishment will lose
billions of dollars. Dr Becker describes in detail the healing of various patients with multiple infections of the bone and flesh that were
not treatable by conventional medical practices but responded dramatically to these “silver ions,” the product resulting from Bredig’s
process. He has written/co-written several papers and books on this subject, e.g., R. O. Becker and J. A. Spadaro, “Treatment of Orthopedic Infections with Electrically Generated Silver Ions: A preliminary report”, J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978 Oct; 60(7):871-81.
Stem Cells and Cancer Treatment
Cancer researcher Gary Smith, MD, independently arrived at a similar conclusion from researching cancer. In an unpublished letter,
he states: “Success in cancer treatment depends on silver in the person’s body. When silver is present, the cancer cells dedifferentiate
and the body is restored... When silver levels are…non-existent, the cancer growth rate…continues…because the cells cannot dedifferentiate… I suspect a silver deficiency is possibly one of the reasons cancer exists and is increasing at such a rapid rate.”
Dr Smith suggests that it is natural to have enough silver in the body to produce all the stem cells we need, and that we do not have that
silver because our food is grown or raised on depleted land. A lot of the experimentation in stem cells at present is in the treatment of
cancer, and the results are reported to be dramatic. We are now being told that the main problem is in obtaining sufficient stem cells to
treat cancers. Some researchers are now collecting stem cells from cancer patients in a series of processes, freezing the cells and then
using them in later cancer treatment.
The Power of the Medical Establishment
189
Cancer
If we already know how to produce stem cells easily and with the patient’s own DNA, then why aren’t the scientists and doctors producing and using them this way? Dr Becker throws some light on this subject. Despite his most careful and well-documented research
over a period of seven years, the medical establishment in general refused to pay any serious attention to his amazing results. Dr
Becker suggests one reason for this is because of early research, going back as far as 200 years ago, where researchers using electrical
currents in therapy were ridiculed and denied any examination of their work. Their research was completely unrelated to the chemical
concepts of the day.
Since electrical therapy in its then form had its problems, improved versions are rejected without consideration in this “enlightened”
age. Indeed, the history of science is full of stories of “new developments” received with great enthusiasm but which had been made
public long, long ago—the scientists of that time denigrated, their work refused examination. Another reason why new research is not
accepted by the medical profession is that virtually all the information doctors and legislators get concerning health topics comes from
drug companies. Any idea that the common people can easily and safely produce and use their own stem cells is completely repugnant
to the entire scientific/medical/pharmaceutical establishment. It would cost the establishment billions of dollars.
History and Science of Silver
Silver has been recorded through history as a preventive and as a treatment for disease. Silver “scalpels” were used in surgery by the
ancient Egyptians. Copper was said to produce an uncontrollable decay of the flesh, and a wound from a copper sword was dreaded.
During the Crusades, the knights carried a silver cup with them which many drank from, and it was said that a person could not catch
a disease from another by drinking out of the same silver cup.
Most of the super-wealthy used silver tableware, even though they could have had gold and even though the silver tarnished and the
gold did not. Before the days of refrigeration, it was common to put a silver coin in a bottle of milk to prevent spoiling. Until very
recent times, doctors used silver when necessary to hold bones together and to cover holes in the skull.
Almost 200 years ago, doctors learned that they could grind silver into a fine powder, much like flour, and use it to treat otherwise
incurable diseases such as syphilis. Doctors usually avoided using it, however, because it commonly produced argyrea, a permanent
bluing of the skin. Silver nitrate was also commonly used as a disinfectant. The negative nitrate ion is poisonous. Around 1880, scientist Georg Bredig developed a process for producing a much superior product by placing two silver electrodes underwater, causing
an electrical arc between the electrodes.
He used a very high voltage (thousands of volts) to produce this arc, which ate away the silver to form a silver colloid of very small
particle size in a positive ionic form (an ion is an electrically charged atom). This product did not cause argyria and was much more
effective than the powdered silver or silver nitrate. Bredig’s silver did have two disadvantages, however. First, the extremely high
voltage could be quite dangerous, especially around water. Second, the process was extremely slow. As a result, the pharmaceutical
companies preferred to produce and sell more easily obtainable silver salts, preferably silver nitrate.
They went so far as to convince several governments to bring in legislation requiring it to be used in every newborn baby’s eyes, to
prevent blindness caused by infection from the mother during birth. However, silver nitrate has severe problems. It attacks the flesh
and stains everything it touches black, the stain being very hard to remove. It had to be used carefully or it would attack the eyes and
itself produce a permanent blindness. Some people believed it always damaged a baby’s eyes to some extent, and it was often said that
a baby treated with it had duller eyes than those not treated.
The continued use of silver nitrate and occasionally ground silver by doctors gave silver a bad reputation, and it was considered a
treatment of more or less last resort. Then came the antibiotics with a huge push from the drug companies. While the silver could treat
almost every strain of bacteria, viruses and fungi effectively, the new antibiotics treated only certain bacteria. An exact diagnosis was
often required before the proper antibiotic could be prescribed.
The silver had another very strange and desirable quality which the antibiotics did not: it was very selective in the bacteria it killed.
It distinguished between the beneficial and the unfriendly bacteria and only killed the unfriendly bacteria! Unfortunately, the medical field took up Pasteur’s finding about bacteria and their relationship to disease and built their unquestioned science around disease
as a product of bacteria. Their general attitude was that all bacteria are to be avoided.
It is now well known that many bacteria are essential to good health. It is also known that very few bacteria will cause disease unless something in the person is badly out of balance. There is far more money in treating the symptoms of disease than in treating the
cause. Still, the general attitude of doctors is to “kill the bacteria,” and that is what antibiotics tend to do.
The use of antibiotics often results in the killing of essential bacteria in the digestive system and probably other parts of the body. For
its chemical production, the liver often uses certain bacteria, just as the pharmaceutical companies do. Antibiotics kill indiscriminately.
Critical Condition
190
While the medical doctors treated fungi and viruses effectively with silver before the days of antibiotics, once antibiotics entered the
picture the medical field then took the position that viruses and fungi are untreatable. They gave their antibiotics to patients for viruses,
although all official positions were that antibiotics would not treat viruses. In more recent times, the drug companies have developed
antifungal products, but these are well known to be very hard on the liver and of minor effect. Even such substances as iodine and
mercurochrome kill indiscriminately and usually attack the flesh to some degree. The right silver product, instead, is very healing.
Developments in Production
In more recent times, a process of producing “ionic silver” by a very-low voltage current has been developed. It is a very safe version
of Bredig’s process. Unfortunately, it has one problem: if water containing any impurities is used, the silver often combines with the
impurities to produce undesirable products—but without the impurities, the water will not conduct the necessary electrical current to
produce the silver in the water. You must use a little existing colloidal silver to prime the process.
As a result, many people are producing a product by this means, using common table salt as an electrolyte. This largely produces silver
chloride, which is insoluble in water and therefore collects in the tissues. When used in large amounts, silver chloride will produce that
discoloration of the skin known as argyria. Perhaps you have seen pictures of “the blue man” on TV or in the news. He was producing
his silver in this manner and drinking it like water over a long period of time.
Another common form is a “silver protein,” a mixture of silver and gelatin or other protein. It is often used by medical researchers
because it is convenient for them, while the production of high quality “ionic silver” is not. Silver proteins can be produced easily
and cheaply in high concentrations. They are often promoted as having very high parts per million and therefore assumed to be very
effective. The high concentration is largely the protein rather than the silver content. Therefore, the surface area covered by the silver
is small, reducing the effectiveness. The difference in action between these various substances, all referred to as “colloidal silver,” is
difficult to debate—but the results are not. All of them produce some beneficial results. But there is a difference, and even more so
in the case of producing stem cells.
All fluids in humans, animals and plants are in ionic form. Alfred B. Searle, founder of Searle Pharmaceuticals, did extensive research
on silver in the early 20th century. In his book The Use of Colloids in Health and Disease (1919), he states: “Applying colloidal silver
to human subjects has been done in a large number of cases with astonishingly successful results.” A very interesting concept that he
brings up is that silver in the ionic form is especially effective because bacteria have a negative ionic charge and therefore the silver
latches onto them, like steel to a magnet, suffocating them.
More interestingly, he stated that the “ionic silver” attaches itself to toxins, which also have a negative ionic charge, and this attachment
aids in removal of the toxins. Such products as “colloidal” and “ionic” silver, DMSO and its derivative MSM, all produced through
modern science, as well as all the very effective health products of our ancestors are increasingly being taken up by people who want to
treat themselves effectively without resorting to pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects. Furthermore, the bacteria phobia
foisted on the public through schools and the news media is beginning to lose its hold.
Probiotics
Cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens) can be ingested or generated by metabolic activity of microbes that live in the gastrointestinal
system. It has been hypothesized that probiotic cultures might decrease the exposure to chemical carcinogens by (1) detoxifying ingested
carcinogens, (2) altering the environment of the intestine and thereby decreasing populations or metabolic activities of bacteria that
may generate carcinogenic compounds, (3) producing metabolic products (e.g., butyrate) which improve a cell’s ability to die when it
should die (a process known as apoptosis or programmed cell death), (4) producing compounds that inhibit the growth of tumor cells,
or (5) stimulating the immune system to better defend against cancer cell proliferation.
Research results from a diversity of studies have suggested that the consumption of probiotic cultures may decrease cancer risk.
Researchers have tested the effect of the consumption of fermented milks, probiotic bacteria, components of bacteria or extracts of
bacteria and have found:
* A reduction in the incidence of chemically induced tumors in rats.
* A reduction of the activity of fecal enzymes (ß-glucuronidase, azoreductase, nitroreductase, and 7-^-dehydrogenase) postulated
to play a role in colon cancer in human and animal subjects.
* Degradation of nitrosamines.
* A weakening of mutagenic activity of substances tested in the laboratory.
* Prevention of damage to DNA in certain colonic cells.
* In vitro binding of mutagens by cell wall components of probiotic bacteria.
* Enhancement of immune system functioning.
Cancer
191
Taken together, these results suggest that probiotic cultures may positively influence the gastrointestinal environment to decrease
the risk of cancer. However, cancer reduction must be demonstrated in humans to confirm the significance of these observations and
these studies are very expensive to conduct. In only one study was the impact of a probiotic preparation on cancer tested in humans.
In this study, the effect of consumption of Lactobacillus casei fermented milk on recurrence of superficial bladder cancer was tested.
The recurrence-free period for the Lactobacillus-consuming group was found to be almost twice as long as the control group.
Toxicity
Chemotherapeutic agents are among the most poisonous substances ever intentionally introduced into a human. Oncologists
continually walk a fine line, trying to give enough to kill the cancer cells, without killing the patient. The drugs are so toxic that a
miscalculation can be fatal. Chemotherapy agents typically carry warnings about “the possibility of fatal or severe toxic reactions.” In
many cases, amongst the lengthy list of serious side effects that can be expected, is death. How toxic is chemotherapy? One authority
explains that with some agents: “If the intravenous needle through which they are being delivered leaks or slips out of the vein,
the resulting scar tissue may cause the loss of the use of the arm.”
Current textbooks tell nurses who administer cytotoxic drugs to wear long-sleeved gowns face shields or goggles, shoe covers, and
extra-thick latex surgical gloves, which are to be changed every half hour. They are told never to eat, drink, smoke,, or apply
cosmetics in the drug preparation area. They are warned that merely handling the drugs poses “significant risks” to health care
workers, including reproductive abnormalities, liver and chromosomal lesions, and hematologic problems. If these are the risks faced
by nurses who simply prepare the injections, what are the dangers to the patients who have these agents injected or infused into their
veins, or who put them into their mouths and swallow them?
When chemotherapy agents (and their metabolites) are excreted from patients’ bodies in their urine and feces, they eventually wind up in
the environment, where they may become a source of cancer for future generations. In most cases, chemotherapy seems to markedly
diminish the quality of life. Unless, of course, you happen to like losing all your hair and incessant, uncontrollable vomiting for hour
upon hour, even breaking bones or rupturing the esophagus. Oncologists characteristically downplay the level of suffering involved
when they recommend chemotherapy to people with cancer. Only rarely are patients given accurate and complete information in
an understandable fashion so that they can make truly informed choices. Far more commonly, chemotherapists think they know what’s
best for the patient, and only give lip service to the ritual of obtaining consent.
During World War II, an accidental explosion of mustard gasses in Naples harbor killed many people. Autopsies revealed that these
people died because their immune systems atrophied and some of their bone marrow cells had disappeared. The scientists thought that
cancers originating in these types of tissues might be effectively treated with the chemicals in mustard gas. Back in 1950, Congress
gave the National Cancer Institute five million dollars to start a cancer drug development program. This program has been responsible
for most of the cancer drugs that are now in use.
Sometimes a scientist has a bright idea for a drug that might interfere with cellular growth and formulates a chemical combination
from scratch. Or a known chemical that a scientist thinks might possibly have an adverse effect on cancer is chosen for testing. There
are about 200,000 new chemicals recognized worldwide every year. Any one of these compounds might qualify as a cancer drug.
Since 1955, when the cancer drug development program began, 500,000 compounds have been screened. Of the 40 cancer drugs
currently around, 26 of them are commercially available. Any chemical that interferes with the mechanism of natural cell division is
a candidate. Most cancer drugs interact with the genetic material in a cell.
Mustard Gas
Mustard gas (dichlorodiethyl sulfide) is a highly toxic war gas, which causes conjunctivitis and blindness. Its vapor is extremely poisonous and is absorbed through the skin. Mustard gas is also used medicinally to treat cancer. But it causes cancer of the bronchi in
industry workers exposed to it, and causes cancer of the lungs, larynx, trachea, and bronchi in cancer patients treated with it.
Nitrogen Mustard
Chemotherapeutic alkylating agents were discovered while scientists were conducting secret research during World War II, but the full
story was not revealed until 1963. The sensitivity of normal lymphoid tissue to the cytotoxic (cell killing) action of nitrogen mustards
led to a test on one mouse with a transplanted lymphoma. The encouraging results of that test led to more extensive investigation.
Eventually, related compounds were developed for clinical use in the treatment of malignancies, including busulfan (Myleran), cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan), Leukeran, and L-phenylalanine mustard (Melphalan). But the nitrogen mustards cause cancer when injected
or given intravenously to mice in even very small doses. Unfortunately, many of the cytotoxic drugs have been found to cause
cancer years after being used to combat cancer.
Fluorouricil
Placing fluorine on a normal pyrimidine, creating a fraudulent DNA building block, produces this compound. In the cells of the body, this
chemical interferes with an enzyme that the body requires to build DNA. Because DNA cannot be produced, the cell can’t divide.
Critical Condition
Methotrexate
192
An anti-vitamin, this drug masquerades as folic acid, an important part of B complex. Because the cell cannot function without folic
acid, it dies.
Procarbazine
In nontechnical terms, this drug nicks the DNA and breaks it. Without DNA, a cell cannot reproduce.
Bacterial Compounds
Part of the bacterial defense system includes substances that bacteria put into their surroundings to prevent other bacteria from growing. These slip between the strands of DNA and prevent its multiplication. Drugs produced from bacteria include adrinmysin,
dactinocycin, and mithramycin.
L-Asparaginase
L-Asparaginase is an enzyme which breaks down asparagine, an amino acid which is an essential building block in proteins. Without
asparagine, the cells cannot produce protein and literally starves to death.
Vincristine & Vinblastine
These chemical compounds were derived from the vinca roseacea plant, a common ground cover that grows happily in many areas
all over the country, including many backyards. Originally, Vincristine and Vinblastine were developed for the treatment of diabetes.
When the scientists noticed these compounds killed cells, they were reclassified as cancer drugs. These two chemicals produce mitotic
arrest, thereby making it impossible for cells to divide and multiply. Chemotherapy, the use of drugs to kill cancer, is an undeniably
expensive proposition, both in terms of dollars expended and in terms of cost to the body. Because the chemicals attack all quickly
dividing cells, healthy as well as malignant, the patient treated with chemotherapeutic drugs pays a high price indeed.
The side effects of these chemicals are devastating! All these chemicals spell death to the lymphocytes, antibodies, and neutrophils of the immune defense forces. When we identify cancer cells inside the body, it’s the white blood cells of the immune system,
which are multiplying and dividing the fastest to fight the cancer. Chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, both kill normal cells
in the bone marrow and in the digestive tract. Serious side effects, such as diarrhea, vomiting, anemia, and a loss of hair, results.
They can also kill the patient. Cancer cells are notorious for changing their characteristics. They can become resistant to even the
most powerful of our chemicals. Such resistance is the result of the mutations that occur. Because cancerous tumors contain billions
of cells, it is possible that one cell will sustain the mutation that makes it and its descendants forever resistant to a particular drug.
Because all chemotherapeutic drugs are mutagens themselves, they may actually increase the rate at which resistant mutants
appear. The drug may actually favor the mutations by destroying the cells, which are sensitive to it.
Eventually, the resistant mutants will multiply and form a drug-resistant cancer that no chemical can touch. And with the immune
system out of commission... Cancer bio-statistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany, issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy
of Advanced Epithelial Cancer. Epithelial cancers comprise the most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon,
etc. After compiling ten years of statistics of clinical cancer treatments, Abel became increasingly uneasy. “A sober and unprejudiced
analysis of the literature,” he wrote, “has rarely revealed any therapeutic success in treating advanced epithelial cancer.
While chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually and
a majority have received some form of chemotherapy before dying.” Abel states that chemotherapy severely damages the body’s
own defenses, the immune system, and often the liver and the kidneys as well. He also notes studies that show that “many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.” Dr. Abel’s study shows conclusive proof that chemotherapy offers
no improvement of a patient’s survival rates. In fact, in some cases, his study proved that you will live longer with No Medical
Treatment At All!
The War On Cancer
The National Cancer Institute formed in 1938 in Bethesda, Maryland and was transformed into a giant monolithic superagency. The
NCI was made responsible for directing cancer research through its burgeoning staff of bureaucrat/scientists. Since then, the NCI
has spent trillions of dollars funding cancer research, but modern medicine has yet to produce a treatment for cancer that is truly
effective and nontoxic. Congress now appropriates about 800 million dollars annually to help finance the cancer war. The entire
decision-making apparatus of the NCI is slanted in favor of chemotherapy and basic research.
Unless Congress takes charge and insists on overseeing their policies, the NCI will never change. Instead of concrete results based on
effective research and clinical practice, the NCI just continues making stale claims. By a kind of verbal slight-of-hand, their periodic
announcements to the public transform 30 years of ineffectual work into an illusion of progress. The National Cancer Program
is really a devastating failure.
Cancer
193
This NCI-produced fiasco has wasted billions of taxpayer’s dollars on predictably worthless cancer programs. Some, like the mammography breast-screening program for women, have turned out to be high-risk health hazards. And millions of trusting cancer
patients have been sacrificed to ineffective treatments which were often deadlier than the cancer itself.
The NCI has stubbornly persisted in pursuing these expensive and dangerous therapies; in spite of the fact that these truths have
been published in the NCI’s own publications. They know that chemotherapeutic cancer agents are highly toxic at applied dosages.
They markedly suppress the immune system, which inhibits the patient’s native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer.
They are also highly carcinogenic, meaning that these chemicals produce cancers in a wide variety of organs. By the end of 1971,
President Richard Nixon actually declared war on cancer by signing the National Cancer Act into law, and the taxpayer-financed crusade against cancer started. It is not only the cancer patients who are sick, the whole system is sick. It is time for a major overhaul
of the whole cancer research program.
Research Funding
Ever since the latter months of 1971, the NCI has had almost unlimited powers to parcel out vast sums of money for research.
Certain so-called, “right people” end up in positions of power on the country’s top-drawer advisory boards, like the President’s Cancer
Panel. Too few people, all on intimate and friendly terms with each other, are in charge of handing out large sums of money each to the
other. The way NCI cancer researchers are expected to choose subjects for their experiments is based on a “play-the-winner” policy.
NCI researchers select only those who have the best chance of surviving. That way, better results can be reported in the medical
journals. The bottom line is that both chemotherapy and radiation are so harsh that they sometimes cause a second cancer, even
while destroying the first.
Most top cancer experts believe that our greatest hope is to devise drugs that will selectively destroy cancer cells, without harming
normal cells–a sort of “magic bullet” against cancer. But, simply screening an endless series of chemicals for anticancer activity will
never yield a powerful and highly selective drug. The haystack is immense, and the needle is very small, perhaps even illusory. Even
if they do finally find such a chemical, how do they plan to deliver it to cancer cells only? Hydrogen peroxide is a perfect cell poison.
T lymphocytes manufacture it themselves, right in our bodies. It kills all kinds of cells, including cancer cells. And, if it doesn’t
work, they’ve got superoxide and hydroxyl ions they can use on them. All these cell poisons are lethal to most bacteria and cancer
cells in even very small quantities.
Radiation
Although ionizing radiation is one of the few environmental contaminants known unequivocally to cause many forms of cancer, it is
routinely recommended and given to about 60% of all cancer patients, despite the fact that with few exceptions, there is no proven
benefit to survival, and the treatment often may inflict tremendous tissue damage to healthy cells, and causes exhaustion, weakness, and nausea. Radiotherapy can also cause secondary cancers after the primary cancer has been treated, leading to secondary
diseases such as pneumonitis and radiation fibrosis. Radiation therapy is associated with both acute and late disease conditions that
affect a patient’s nutritional status. Radiation therapy relies on the local destruction of cancer cells through ionizing radiation that
disrupts cellular DNA.
Radiation therapy can be externally or internally originated, high or low dose, and delivered with computer-assisted accuracy to the
site of the tumor. Brachytherapy, or interstitial radiation therapy, places the source of radiation directly into the tumor as implanted
“seeds.” Newer radiotherapy technologies such as stereotactic radiosurgery, which uses tightly focused x-rays or gamma rays to
target tumors without widespread irradiation of surrounding tissues, may improve radiotherapy results; these approaches, however,
are limited to certain types of cancers.
Radiation therapy is given today to about half of all American cancer patients, even though the procedure has actually been shown
to be useful in only a small number of cancers–early Hodgkin’s disease, lymphosarcoma, inoperable local prostate cancer, and localized tumors of the head, neck, larynx, and cervix.
It is impossible to give radiation treatments without injuring normal cells. Depending on the site treated, large doses of radiation
can cause nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite and reduction in bone marrow function. Although cancer specialists know that
very few cancer patients are cured by radiotherapy, they continue to recommend it widely. Radiation is used routinely following
lumpectomies, even though studies published in Lancet and elsewhere have even suggested that radiation following breast surgery
may increase death rates.
The radioactivity used to kill cancer cells can cause normal cells to mutate, creating new cancer cells of other types. A number of
studies have found that people who undergo radiation therapy are actually more likely to have their cancers spread to other sites
in their bodies. Early studies at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center actually found that patients who received radiotherapy
died sooner than those left untreated.
Critical Condition
194
In the 1970s, Dr. Irwin Bross, director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York, led an important
project studying the alarming increase in rates of leukemia. After four years of work, it became disturbingly clear to the research
team that the main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation, in the form of diagnostic medical X-rays. The
use of radiation in cancer treatment employs high-intensity X-rays. Much higher doses are involved in cancer treatment than in
diagnostic X-rays, because the purpose is to kill cells, or cripple their ability to reproduce.
While a typical diagnostic X-ray might deliver one or two rads of radiation, a six-week course of radiotherapy delivers about 5,000
rads. While dead cells don’t themselves become cancerous, there is invariably extensive damage to cells in adjacent tissues and
organs, which can then become cancerous. The cancer danger in radiotherapy is at the edge of the beam, where you can’t
control it.
John Gofman, M.D., is professor emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, and professor at
the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco. Working under Manhattan Project head J. Robert Oppenheimer, he
was responsible for producing the plutonium-239 that was indispensable to the production of the first atomic bombs.
In the early 1960s, working for the Atomic Energy Commission, John Gofman established the Biomedical Research Division at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities. There, he came
to the distressing conclusion that human exposure to ionizing radiation was far more serious than had been previously recognized.
In his 1995 book Preventing Breast Cancer, he said that his estimate is that about three-quarters of the current annual incidence
of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources. He said
that an estimated 75% of recent and current breast-cancer would not have occurred in the absence of earlier medical and other
irradiation.
How Tumors Grow
Almost every tissue in the body derives blood from the thinner-than-a-hair capillaries that lace our tissues. Through capillaries, nutrients, oxygen and various signaling molecules diffuse into cells. These mechanisms maintain health, fight disease, and allow the body
to flourish and grow. Scientists have found that tumors start out without circulation. In the early stages of tumor development, they are
limited to a trickle of nutrients that can diffuse from the nearest capillaries. Then, somehow, tumors begin to stimulate healthy tissue
to make thousands of new blood vessels to supply the cancerous growth-a process called angiogenesis. Without this ability to nourish
itself and grow, a tumor cannot enlarge. If the blood supply can be reduced or cut off, the tumor will shrink or die.
Scientists believe that a primary tumor sends chemicals to signal new blood vessels to grow into itself, but at the same time also sends
a chemical signal that prevents other tumors from growing in other parts of the body. Advanced biomedical technology has now pinpointed those signals, and most scientists accept that the angiogenesis process (stimulation of new blood vessel growth) regulates the
growth of metastatic tumors. Once the primary tumor is removed, there is nothing to stop other tumors from growing elsewhere. That’s
why some cancer patients often get worse after undergoing tumor removal.
Panic Creates Easy Victims
Women must grapple with whether to undergo major surgery, or to watch and wait. This is a diabolical position. The authority figure in the cancer equation, the oncologist, has now been given permission to pronounce a psychological, pharmaceutical, and
surgical curse upon healthy and unsuspecting patients. Women are being treated as mere guinea pigs, being hereded from pillar
to post, receeiving diagnoses and treatments that are not only causing serious psychological and physical harm, but often lead to the
death of the individual. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms.
Irwin D. Bross, former Director of Bio-Statistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo NY, wrote his thesis on breast cancer
after spending some time researching the nature and outcome of the disease and discovering that more than half of those diagnosed
with breast cancer had benign lesions that were unable to spread.
He states:
“What most women have is a tumor which, under a light microscope, looks like a cancer to a pathologist. Chancers are, this tumor
lacks the ability to metastasize–to spread throughout the body–which is the hallmark of a genuine cancer... Our discovery was highly
unpopular with the medical profession. Doctors couldn’t afford to admit the scientific truth because the standard treatment in those
days was radical mastectomy.
Admitting the truth could lead to malpractice suits by women who lost a breast because of an incorrect medical diagnosis. There is no
reason for women to panic when they hear “cancer.” Panic makes them easy victims. Women who are concerned about breast cancer
need facts, not myths, to make their own decisions.”
Conflicts Of Interest
195
Cancer
Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s primary sponsor and the mastermind of the event in 1985 was Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, now known
as AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is the company which manufactures the controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, tamoxifen. All TV, radio and print media advertising is paid for and must be approved by AstraZeneca. It is less well known that AstraZeneca
also makes herbicides and fungicides.
One of its products, the organochlorine pesticide acetochlor, is implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer. Zeneca’s Perry, Ohio,
chemical plant is a major source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the U.S., spewing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens
into the air in 1996.
When it comes to the environmental carcinogens found in pesticides, herbicides, other toxic chemicals and plastics, there is booming
silence by all Breast Cancer Awareness Month programs. Many experts predicted forty years earlier that cancer rates would increase,
citing an explosion in the use of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the early 1980s, production of synthetic chemicals increased
by a factor of three hundred-fold. Billions of tons of substances which had never existed before were released into the environment.
Yet, only 3% of the 75,000 chemicals in use have been tested for safety.
These toxic time-bombs are everywhere–in our water, air and food. They are also found in the workplace, in schools and in household
cleaners, cosmetics and personal care products. Women who live near toxic waste dumps have 6.5 times the incidence of breast
cancer. A survey conducted by Dr. Mary Wolff of Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, found that women with breast cancer had four times
the levels of DDE (by-product of the pesticide DDT) than that found in non-carcinogenic tumors.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) was founded with the support of the Rockefeller family in 1913. Members of the chemical and
pharmaceutical industry have long had a place on its board. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein, MD, Professor of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health: “The ACS also has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move the ACS reflects the interests of major
manufacturers of mammography machines and film, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kokak, and Piker.”
It is interesting that the American Cancer Society’s latest report on cancer prevention makes no mention of environmental factors
or safer screening protocols. According to Epstein, “Over recent decades, the incidence of cancer has escalated to epidemic proportions while our ability to treat and cure most cancers remains virtually unchanged. Apart from the important role of tobacco, there is
substantial and long-standing evidence relating this epidemic to involuntary and avoidable exposure to industrial carcinogens in air,
water, the workplace and consumer products.
Nevertheless, the priorities of the cancer establishment, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society remain narrowly fixated on damage control–diagnosis and treatment–and on basic molecular research, with relative indifference to, if not benign
neglect of, prevention. Concerns over this imbalance are further compounded by serious questions of conflicts of interest, particularly
with the multibillion-dollar cancer drug industry.”
Toxic Tamoxifen
The most popular breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen (Nolvadex), grosses $500 million annually. The long-term safety of Tamoxifen
use in healthy women has never been established. On May 16, 2000, the New York Times reported that the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences had added 14 substances to its list of known carcinogens. Tamoxifen was included in that list!
The World Health Organization formally designated Tamoxifen as a human carcinogen back in 1996, grouping this treatment with
around 70 other chemicals–about one quarter of them pharmaceuticals. When WHO announced Tamoxifen as a known carcinogen in
1996, the study on this drug was abruptly curtailed, but not before 33 women taking Tamoxifen at that time developed endometrial
cancer. In May 1995, California’s expert committee, established from Proposition 65, decided to let the public know that tamoxifen use
is likely to cause endometrial cancer. Zeneca Pharmaceuticals did not challenge these findings. It is known that tamoxifen causes
uterine cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer and colorectal cancer.
After just 2 to 3 years of use, tamoxifen increases the incidence of uterine cancer by two to three times. The treatment for uterine
cancer is hysterectomy. In additon, tamoxifen increases the risk of stroke, blood clot, eye damage, menopausal symptoms and
depression. The biggest shock of all is the fact that tamoxifen increases the risk of breast cancer!
The journal Science published a study from Duke University Medical Center in 1999, showing after 2 to 5 years of use tamoxifen
actually initiated the growth of breast cancer! So, Zeneca, originator of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, is the manufacturer of carcinogenic petrochemicals, pollutants and a breast cancer drug that causes at least four different types of cancer in women, including
breast cancer. What’s wrong with this picture?
Mammography And Vested Interests
196
Cancer
Five to thirteen billion dollars per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. The mammography industry also conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards and donates considerable funds. Pharmaceutical
giant DuPont is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program. ACS sponsors television shows and other media
productions promoting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals, clinics, medical
organizations, and doctors; produces educational films, and, of course, lobbies Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography services. The ACS has been, and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry, while ignoring or attacking the
development of viable alternatives. Mammography today is a lucrative and highly competitive business.
Mammography Dangers
A mammogram is an X-ray. Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for pre-menopausal
women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately one rad (radiation absorbed dose)
exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray. Each one rad exposure increases breast cancer risk by about one
percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening. These risks are even greater for younger
women subject to baseline screening.
Women are now encouraged to start having mammograms earlier than ever before. At one time. Only women 50 years or older were
told to have this screening. Now the campaign is targeting 40-year-olds and even women as young as twenty-five. However, detection of breast cancer with mammography is not the same as protection from breast cancer. The only acknowledged cause of cancer,
according to the American Cancer Society, is from radiation. When it comes to radiation, there is no safe level of exposure.
In Radiation and Human Health, Dr. John Goffman, a scientist with degrees in both chemistry and medicine, writes: “There will be
more breast cancers induced by the procedure than there will be women saved from breast cancer death by early discovery of lesions.”
For 20 years or more, Dr. Gofman has been publishing studies of the hazards of low-level radiation. His hypothesis is that “Medical
radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principle cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the twentieth
century.” Dr. Gofman believes that medical X-rays are the major cause of cancer, including breast cancer, as well as heart disease in
the U.S. In his book The Politics of Cancer, internationally recognized carcinogens expert Dr. Samuel Epstein warns us: “...the U.S.
National Cancer Institute now agrees that large-scale mammography screening programs are likely to cause more cancers than could
possibly be detected.”
Dr. Epstein warns:
“There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of
increased risk of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer
risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average 2 rads each. In spite of this up to 40% of women
over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5-10 rads in a single screening from
older, high-dose equipment. Even for low-dosage exposure to two rads or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women having
an annual mammography. More recent concern comes from evidence that 1% of women, or over one million women, in the United
States alone carry a gene that increases their breast cancer risk from radiation fourfold.”
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. The depths of the mammography deceit began in the early 1970s. It was
concocted by insiders at the American Cancer Society and their friends at the National Cancer Institute. The number of women who
were put ‘at risk’ or who died as a result of this scheme is not known but is estimated to be huge.
In 1978, Irwin J.D. Bross, Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for cancer research, commented about the
cancer screening program: “The women should have been given the information about the hazards of radiation at the same time they
were given the sales talk for mammography. Doctors were gung-ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and X-rayed not
just a few women but a quarter of a million women. A jump in exposure of a quarter of a million persons to something which could
do more harm than good was criminal and it was supported by money from the federal government and the American Cancer
Society. The National Cancer Institute was warned in 1974 by Professor Malcolm C. Pike, at the University of Southern California
School of Medicine, that a number of specialists had concluded that “giving a woman, under age 50, a mammogram on a routine basis
is unethical.” The experts in the government were told not to do this to healthy women in the year 1974.
Cancer Risk from Breast Compression
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle cancerous breast with care, for fear of accidentally disseminating cells and spreading cancer. Even so, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in pre-menopausal women.
This may lead to a spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in, or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.
Harmless breast cancers can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.
False-Positive Diagnosis
197
Cancer
Mammography provides false tumor reports between 5% and 15% of the time. False positive results mean more testing, requiring
women to be exposed to additional X-rays, creating a more stressful environment and possibly even leading to unneeded surgery. A
report on false-positive breast cancer diagnosis was printed in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Included was the following:
“If more women knew how common false-positive results are, there might be less stress and anxiety while waiting to undergo further
diagnostic tests, which sometimes take many weeks. Most importantly, greater educational initiatives focusing on diet and lifestyle in
breast cancer prevention would empower women to protect themselves rather than relying solely on early detection.”
A large-sample, long-term Canadian study, published in September 2000 proved that an annual mammogram was no more effective
in preventing deaths from breast cancer than periodic physical examinations for women in their 50s. Adding to the controversy, a
study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that mammography screening for breast cancer offers only
minimal gains in life expectancy for women beyond the age of 69. Another problem with mammograms is that interpretation is often
wrong. In 1996, the journal Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a test of 108 radiologists throughout the United States.
The test used a set of 79 mammograms where the diagnosis had been verified by subsequent biopsies, surgeries or other follow-up.
The radiologists missed cancer in 21% of the films, they thought 10% of the women with no breast disease had cancer and thought
42% of benign lesions were cancerous.
Another study looked at the records of 8,779 postmenopausal women who had undergone mammography, and found that women
taking estrogen had 33% more false positives (mammograms showed an abnormality but none could be found) and 423% more false
negatives (mammograms which missed an abnormality that showed up later) than women not taking estrogen.
Mammograms are not diagnostic and too frequently lead to unnecessary breast biopsies–an expensive, invasive surgical procedure
which causes extreme anxiety, some pain and often physical harm to many women who do not have cancer. According to the 1998
Merck Manual, for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, 5 to 10 women will needlessly undergo a painful breast biopsy.
The American Cancer Society recommends annual or biannual mammography for all women over the age of 40 (or even younger).
A $100 mammogram for all 62 million U.S. women over 40 and a $1,000+ biopsy for 1 to 2 million women is an $8 billion-per-year
industry. There is a superior alternative: digital infrared thermal imaging, which does not use mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation. It can also detect signs of breast cancer years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam. ammography cannot detect
a tumor until after it has been growing for years and reaches a certain size. Thermography is able to detect the possibility of breast
cancer much earlier, because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is the formaiton of a direct supply of blood
to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into larger tumors.
The safer and more effective diagnostic techniques have been vigorously attacked by the breast cancer awareness organizations. So
all the fuss that comes each October, enlisting women’s support and hard-earned money, actually does nothing to eliminate the cause
of this devastating condition. Women can make the difference in eliminating breast cancer.
The breast cancer epidemic is not some great mystery. The causes of cancer are already known. Toxic diets, toxic lifestyles, toxic
emotions, toxic environments, toxic drug treatments and toxic diagnostic techniques cause cancer. Corporations are only interested in
increasing their profits and ensuring their tentacles of control; they are not interested in actual solutions.
Computer-Aided Detection
The newest thing being promoted to women is computer-aided detection mammography (CAD). Mammogram films are converted into
digital files that can be analyzed by computer software to check images and mark suspicious areas. Radiologist can view these images
in conjunction with their own readings. The new technology was found to be “less accurate than interpretation without the computer’s
help.” The “computer software designed to improve mammogram interpretation may actually make it worse,” according to a study
reported in the April 5, 2007 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The new software resulted in 32% more women being recalled for additional tests and 20% more women undergoing breast biopsy,
though most results showed no breast cancer. The software may actually increase detection of the least dangerous breast cancers (in
situ) which grow so slowly they often would rarely come to clinical attention without screening. The software did not prove to be
any better in detecting more dangerous invasive breast cancers. This new and questionable technology is also covered by insurance.
Follow the Money
The original push was for women to begin annual mammograms around age 50. A new push recommends women get their first mammogram beginning at age 35, or as young as their twenties, if they have a family history of breast cancer. Mammograms are even less
reliable for younger women with denser breast tissue. No one wants cancer, and many women unquestionably follow the propaganda
that mammograms save lives. Not only does the incidence of breast cancer continue to escalate; it is striking younger women all the
time. Mammograms can detect cancer, but also misread cancer. Meanwhile, accumulated radiation from mammograms with yearly
hits to the same tissue contributes to gene damage and cancer development.
Cancer
198
When a positive diagnosis is made, doctors assure patients it was lucky they had a mammogram to find the cancer, so that treatment
can start right away. How many patients are ever advised that repeated mammograms may have promoted the cancer in the first place?
John Gofman, physicist and MD, estimates that women between the ages of 50 and 64 who are exposed to one mammogram have one
chance in 2000 of a mammogram-induced breast cancer. After 15 exams (15 chances in 2000), the risk of a mammogram-induced
breast cancer increases to one chance in 133.
If a woman has 25 mammograms (one p/yr from age 50 to 75), her risk of developing breast cancer increases to one in 80 or greater
because of the synergistic effect of bioaccumulation and DNA damage. This does not include radiation from a lifetime of other medical
or dental X-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, or therapeutic applications, nor does it include exposure from radioactive fallout that continuously rains down on us from nuclear power plant emissions, depleted uranium munitions fallout, or uranium mine tailings. These risk
factors are not receiving the attention they deserve.
The NCI and the ACS campaigned for free screenings in the 1970s. John C. Bailar III, editor of the NCI journal questioned mass
screenings in 1976 when he wrote, “The possible benefits of mammography have received more emphasis in the clinical literature than
its defects.” He suggested, “mammography may eventually cause more deaths from breast cancer than it prevents.”
Melanoma
In too many scientific and medical fields, for a lot of researchers the truth is defined only in relationship to the next grant, peer pressure
and the fight to further an entrenched view. This essentially political process goes on, despite any evidence, even strong evidence, to
the contrary. Much “scientific” research is known to be fraudulent. Almost all “scientists” are out to prove somethig so as to continue their careers; to them, finding the truth is only secondary. Ultraviolet (UV) intensity is now forecast in population centers daily.
We have been taught to be afraid of our own shadows! The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that when
outdoors we should “protect ourselves against ultraviolet light whenever we can see our shadow.” And many physicians give their
patients the same warning. This is terrible advice. If man were a machine, a doctor could repair or replace one part without worrying
about the rest of the “machine.” Man is no machine, but more like a web or hologram.
Every organ and every part affects all the other parts; in fact, cells in every part communicate with all the other parts. As a result of the
EPA’s kind of advice, which is based on junk science, the use of sunglasses is epidemic; we hide behind stylish darkened car windows,
we slather our skin with sunscreen for even brief sun exposure. People who engage in these practices are ruining their disposition
and health. The phobia arose after investigators anesthetized animals, propped their eyes open and shined intense UV light into them;
this damaged their retinas. Excessive exposure to one kind of ultraviolet (shorter-wave germicidal UVC) can damage tissue.
But the EPA makes the ridiculous leap from that truth to the conclusion that we should avoid all UV. UVC is not present increasingly
in sunlight; a purported thinning of the protective ozone layer has been debunked. UVC is found in tanning salons and halogen lamps.
In fact, the trace amounts of UV radiation in natural daylight are required for physical and mental health, civilized behavior,
muscle strength, energy and learning. Sunlight, in moderation, improves immunity and stimulates our metabolism while decreasing
food craving, and increases our intelligence.
Indoor Lighting
Malignant melanoma is often alarmingly but wrongly blamed on sun exposure. The dangerous kind, called skin cancer, is ultimately
fatal if not corrected. A study by the US Navy found the most melanoma in people who worked indoors all the time. Those who
worked both outdoors and indoors some of the time had the lowest incidence. Also, most melanomas appeared on parts of the body
that are seldom exposed to sunlight. The inference is that both very high and very low exposures to UV light can be harmful–and
moderate exposure is healthful. A study published in the medical journal Lancet and a Russian study found that fluorescent light rather
than sunlight promotes meanoma, proportionately to the time of exposure.
In the Lancet study, among a sample of nearly 900 women, those who worked indoors under fluorescent lighting had 2.1 times higher
melanoma risk than others. Relative risks were lower in women who had been most heavily exposed to sunlight, both playing outdoors
as children and sunbathing as adults. Emissions from fluorescent lights extend into the potentially carcinogenic range. The cathodes
located at the ends of the light tubes emit X-rays and other electromagnetic pollution. Plants living under the central portion of long
fluorescent light tubes grow normally; but when placed close to the ends of the tubes, their growth is abnormal and stunted. Laboratory
animals placed in cages close to the ends of these light tubes become aggressive and cannibalistic.
The light from fluorescent tubes, as well as TV sets and computer terminals, causes red blood cells to clump together after prolonged
exposure. This reduces alertness, promotes a tired feeling and increases the risk of heart attack and stroke. But when the ends of the
light tubes are shielded with lead and traces of UV are added to the light, plants and animals under them grow and function normally.
Melanoma can result from excessive exposure to sunlamps; their rays and those from bright halogen lights include some of the dangerous UVC. If users of sunlamps consume a junk diet, their risk of melanoma is increased.
Sunscreens
199
Cancer
Sunscreens block out only UVA and UVB, which we all need in trace amounts, but not the potentially dangerous, germicidal UVC.
No commercial sunscreens have been proved safe. Their chemicals penetrate the skin into the circulation and add to the burden of
toxins to be detoxified. Commercial sunscreens increase the risk of melanoma by causing mutations when the cells’ chromosomes
interact with the chemicals and the light. Natural sunscreens, as well as commercial ones, curtail needed uptake of vitamin D3 from
UVB, increasing the risk of osteoporosis. Mounting evidence indicates that many sunscreens contain carcinogens and that the rise of
skin cancers parallels the increase in sunscreen usage. The only sunscreen that is recommended is coconut oil, although, you should
not bake in the sun all day. Adding a little iodine to the coconut oil for the first week of summer gives added protection; however,
do not use the iodine for more than a week, as continued use can inhibit your thyroid function. Another non-carcinogenic sunscreen
would be one containing titanium dioxide.
Chlorination
Drinking and swimming in chlorinated water can also cause malignant melanoma. Sodium hypochlorite, used in chlorination of water
for swimming pools, is mutagenic. Redheads and blonds are disproportionately melanoma-prone; their skin contains a relative excess
of pheomelanins compared to darker people. Worldwide pollution of rivers and oceans and the chlorination of swimming pool water
have promoted an increase in melanoma.
Synthetic Hormones
Melanomas have increased sharply among women in the principal Pill-taking countries of Australia, America and in Europe. In one
study, all the women who developed melanomas under the age of 40 had used the Pill. By 1981, the overall increased melanoma risk
for Pill-users was statistically significant at three times. The Pill also promotes development of heart attacks, in part by depleting body
stores of vitmain B6. Like breast cancer cells, those tumors have estrogen receptors. and so women on HRT are more likely to develop
melanomas than non-users. The risk of breast cancer increases by 2.3 percent for each of the 11 years the average woman takes HRT.
The effect diminishes on stopping it and disappears after about five years.
The Lymphatic System
You should know all you can about your lymphatic system, because your very life depends on it. Nearly 75% of your total body
weight is water. One-third of your body fluid is extracellular, meaning that it is outside the cells. But only 12% of your body fluid
is blood and 62% of your bodily fluid is inside the cells. What that means is that 36% of your fluid is lymph.
Lymph is the fluid that surrounds all the cells. It is the cell’s aqueous environment. There are three times more lymph fluid in the
body than blood. Not all cells are surrounded by water. Bone minerals surround the bone cells. But all cells depend directly on
extracellular water for food. The lymph fluid through minute channels feeds even bone cells. Lymph is filled with nutrients on
their way to the cells, waste products thrown off by the cells, hormones, and enzymes.
Leukocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes, antibodies and other white blood cells are able to travel wherever water exists. Just as the air
around your body is in motion constantly, likewise, the lymph fluid that surrounds the cells is in constant motion. Cells are able
to function better with fresh lymph fluid filled with the proper concentrations of oxygen, glucose and all other nutrients. When fresh
supplies replace the waste products of cells–the toxins, bacteria viruses, poisons, trash and debris–cells are healthier, and so are you.
The removal of proteins from the interstitial spaces (surrounding cells) is an absolutely essential function, without which we would
die with 24 hours. Valves exist in all lymph channels.
In the large lymphatics, one-way valves exist every few millimeters, and in the smaller lymphatics, the valves are much closer than
this. Motion pictures of exposed lymph vessels in animals and humans show that when a lymph vessel becomes stretched with fluid,
the smooth muscles in the wall of the vessel automatically contract. Furthermore, each segment of the lymph vessel between successive valves functions as a separate automatic pump. That is, the filling of a segment causes it to contract and the fluid is pumped
through the valve to the following lymphatic segment. This fills the subsequent segment and a few seconds later, it too contracts. This
continues all along the lymphatic system until the fluid is finally emptied back into the blood stream from the thoracic duct into the
vena cava underneath the collar bones.
The heart is on automatic. It starts beating before you are born and continues to beat until you die. But the lymphatic system is
completely dependent on some kind of movement to stimulate the pumping action. In addition to the intrinsic contractions of the
lymph vessel walls, there are other factors, which cause the lymph pump to function.
Almost anything that compresses the lymph vessel can also cause pumping, such as the contraction of a muscle, movements of body
parts, arterial pulsation, and especially lymphatic body massage and skin brushing. Obviously, the lymphatic pump becomes very
active during exercise, often increasing lymph flow as much as ten to thirty-fold. On the other hand, during periods of rest, lymph
flow is very sluggish.
Critical Condition
200
When you do rebound exercise, your lymphatic system moves about twenty times as fast as it does at rest. That’s why it’s so
easy to keep your body healthy when you rebound regularly. The lymphatic system consists of millions of lymph veins. The smaller
ones have walls only one cell thick, but the thoracic duct, the largest lymph vein, is the size of your thumb.
The lymphatic system is different from the cardiovascular system–which is a closed-circuit system made up of arteries, capillaries, veins, and heart. Your lymphatic system works more like an internal central vacuum system. The lymphatic terminals feed into
the lymph veins. The minute quantity of fluid that returns to the circulatory system by way of the lymphatics is extremely important.
Substances of high molecular weight, such as proteins, can’t be reabsorbed into the veins of the cardiovascular system through the
capillaries, but can flow into the lymphatic capillaries almost completely unimpeded. The lymphatic terminals are made up of endothelial cells attached by anchoring filaments to the connective tissue between the surrounding tissue cells. The edge of one cell usually
overlaps the edge of another one, leaving it free to flap inward. These minute valves allow metabolic trash and debris into the lymphatic
terminal, but prevent it from escaping.
Large particles of dead cells, viruses, and trash can be sucked into the lymphatic terminals along with excess water. But it’s a one-way
street. The junk can’t get out again. Extracellular fluid escapes from the capillaries of the cardiovascular system. The capillaries
are like strainers. They’re filled with little sieve-like holes, which allow oxygen, nutrients, and protein molecules to escape into the
tissue spaces. But the holes are too small to permit red blood cells to flow out of the blood system. That’s why blood doesn’t surround
the cells, as lymph fluid does.
After bringing life-giving oxygen and nutrients to the cells, 90% of the fluid is reabsorbed at the venal end of the capillaries through
the same minute holes. Only 10% of the fluid that escapes from the capillaries actually moves through the lymphatic system.
White blood cells have the ability to change shape when necessary. They squeeze a pseudopodium, a part of the ectoplasm or outside
skin, through a tiny pore in the capillary about one-tenth their size and ooze in. That’s the way white blood cells get out of your blood
stream when the red blood cells cannot.
Essentially, no particulate matter that enters the tissues can be absorbed directly into the capillary membranes because the sieve-like
holes are too tiny. If the particles are not gobbled up locally in the tissues by the giant macrophages, they enter the lymph and flow
through the lymphatic vessels into the lymph nodes, which are strategically located along the course of the lymphatic system. The
lymph nodes are those little nodules that sometimes swell up under the chin, in the groin, and under your arms when you get sick.
The nodes swell up because foreign particles are trapped there in a meshwork of tiny chambers, populated with large numbers of
macrophages, waiting to eat the aliens and keep them from general circulation. Your body is constantly exposed to bacteria, viruses,
fungi, and parasites that are opportunistic scavengers. These aliens cover your skin, are in your mouth, your lungs, and your nose.
They live in your digestive system and even in the membranes lining your eyes. Many of these scavengers are capable of causing
serious, sometimes fatal, damage if they are allowed to invade the deeper tissues and organs of the body.
You are also exposed intermittently to other highly prolific microorganisms, on top of those that are normally present in your body.
Some have the potential to cause a deadly condition, such as pneumonia, streptococcal infections, or typhoid fever. There still remain
other lines of defense. The spleen functions a bit like the lymph nodes, except that its fluid is blood, not lymphatic fluid. The spleen
permits red blood cells to squeeze through its meshwork, but abnormal red blood cells, metabolic trash, and debris are subject to immediate phagocytosis, meaning that they are eaten by the macrophages of the spleen.
The War on Cancer has to be fought inside the body. When the enemy shows its face, all the cells of your body become involved
in the fight, either directly or indirectly. Depending on the outcome of the battle within, all the cells share in the victory, or the defeat.
The forces of your immune defense system equal a standing army of close to two and one-half million troops. All are superbly
armed and trained. They are not only ready to fight all your enemies immediately; they’ve been defending your very life since before
you were born. It is an all-volunteer army!
Each member of your immune defense forces is ready to go wherever danger lurks.
They fight for your life to the death without a moment’s hesitation and without a thought for their own survival. The leukocytes are
the mobile units of your microscopic army. Leukocytes are capable of traveling anywhere in your entire body as the need arises.
Leukocytes make up 1% of all the cells in your body. Their total weight comes to about two pounds per person.
There are six general types of leukocytes. Some are large; others small. There are a lot of some but less of others that have very
specialized responsibilities. Some are manufactured in the bone marrow, while others are manufactured in the lymphatic system,
including the nodes, spleen, tonsils, and thymus. All bones have built-in blood channels through which these cells can be released.
All white blood cells are deployed through the rapidly moving bloodstream, or the slower moving lymphatic pathways to wherever
they’re needed. More than half of the leukocytes in your body are made up of very efficient polymorphonuclear neutrophils. These
fast-responding cells attack and destroy invading bacteria, viruses, or other foreign agents by eating them up.
Critical Condition
201
The neutrophils are dedicated to one goal. They search out and destroy anything that might be harmful to the body. They stay
in the blood stream for just a few hours. Because they have the ability to dramatically change their shape, or morph, they’re able to
squeeze through. Even though the pores of the blood vessels are incredibly minute and the neutrophils are much bigger, they can
constrict themselves and slide through a pore a bit at a time, much as a thread slips through the eye of a needle. And neutrophils
have the ability to move by themselves.
Although red blood cells are pushed around by the flow of plasma in the cardiovascular system, the neutrophils travel alone. This
capability is scientifically known as ameboid motion. They can move several times their length in about a minute. Neutrophils
have the ability to tax toward or away from the source of a chemical. This phenomenon is called chemotaxis. Because bacteria toxins
and even the degenerated products of injured tissue create a chemical environment readily identified by neutrophils as a chemotoxic
signal, large numbers of leukocytes move from the capillaries into the injured and inflamed area to clean it up.
This is what is known as inflammation. When an inflammation occurs, within just a few hours the number of neutrophils in the
blood increases by four or five times, up to as many as 25,000 per cubic millimeter. Perhaps the most important weapon of the neutrophils is their ability to eat, or phagocytize, an invader. Another talent of the leukocytes is their ability to identify the material they
eat. If they didn’t have this special capability, normal cells would be gobbled up as well. Each healthy cell of the body carries an
identification known as an epitope. The epitope is made up of very specific protein molecules, which are easily read by the neutrophils.
Cells wear their identification on the outside. When the information isn’t exactly right, the neutrophils identify it as a foreigner, or
mutant, and carry out immediate destruction by ingestion. In times of serious tissue inflammation, the neutrophil’s entire lifespan
can be compressed into just a few hours. They proceed rapidly to the affected area, ingest the invading organisms, and in the process
are destroyed themselves. They don’t know when to stop eating. As long as there is foreign matter, they continue to eat until they
explode. When neutrophils and macrophages engage foreigners, large numbers of neutrophils and macrophages die, but not before
they have destroyed large colonies of bacteria.
The debris of dead immune cells and dead bacteria on both sides is commonly known as pus. Pus formation continues until all
infection is suppressed. If it’s close to the outside of the body, the pus forms into a boil or blister and is eventually eliminated through
the skin. If the infection is deep within the body, the debris is usually absorbed into the lymphatic system. After receiving a chemical
danger signal, the bone marrow goes to work and produces more monocytes. Within just eight to twelve hours of manufacture, these
tiny cells change from immature tiny cells, incapable of ingesting anything, into fully mature macrophages. The macrophages have
the ability to move independently through the body in an on-going battle. Monocytes make up only 5% of the white blood cells
while in the bloodstream.
But that’s the route they must travel from the bone marrow where they are formed into the tissue spaces where they are needed. While
the monocytes are in the bloodstream, they are young, immature, and incapable of fighting off a foreign invader. But once they slip
through a capillary pore and enter the tissue spaces, they are in pursuit of bacteria. They immediately begin to expand to five times
their birth size and are then known as macrophages. They have all the talents and capabilities of the neutrophils, and then some.
Where a neutrophil can eat between five and twenty bacteria before it dies of its own gluttony, the macrophage has the capability of
phagocytizing as many as one hundred bacteria.
When necessary, the giant macrophages can even consume whole red blood cells that have gone wrong, malarial parasites, and even
dead neutrophils. The macrophages have the extraordinary ability to excrete the residue of the digested enemies they eat. Macrophages
are able to continue destroying alien invaders for weeks, months, even years, before they die a natural death of old age. Although
these cells are able to travel when an emergency stimulates them into action, they usually attach themselves to various organs and
tissues of the body.
In a healthy, clean body, the macrophages might spend the rest of their lives just guarding that particular part of the body. The
macrophages based in various tissues differ in appearance and action because of differences in their environments. When science
studied various organs and found macrophages in residence, it mistook them for different varieties of cells. They even gave
the macrophages different names. Scientists call the macrophages in the liver Kupffer’s cells; in the lungs they are known as alveolar
macrophages; in the subcutaneous tissues they are called histiocytes and clasmatocytes; and in the brain they are dubbed microglia.
But they are all macrophages, and perform the same functions in the same way as all macrophages. Most T-cell lymphocytes
are taught how to identify and fight only one particular invader.
As soon as they are released from the thymus and sent into the bloodstream for a few hours, they find their way to one of the lymph
nodes. Once in a node, they settle in a wait for the specific invader that they’ve been programmed to detect and kill. When one shows
up, they destroy the enemy. Killing the alien activates their special programming. They then reproduce at a highly accelerated
rate, forming tremendous numbers of duplicate lymphocytes, which are known as sensitized T-cells. The sensitized T-cells are
released into the lymph fluid and carried into the blood.
Critical Condition
202
They circulate through all the tissue fluids and back to the lymph again, keeping a lookout for invaders as they make their rounds.
Sensitized T cells circulate around and around the circuit, sometimes for many years. B lymphocytes circulate freely in the blood for a
few hours before they take up residence in the lymphoid tissue. They sit, silently awaiting a specific invader. Each B lymphocyte is
capable of producing only one type of antibody, and can only be activated by one type of invader.
There are at least a million different types of B lymphocytes, and just as many T lymphocytes. All are capable of forming highly
specific antibodies, or sensitized cells, when the appropriate foreigner activates their programming. The foreigner always has some
chemical compound in its makeup that is different from any other compound of the cells that really belong to the body. Scientists call
this substance the antigen.
The antigen is the equivalent of the foreign invader’s secret code. There are three types of T-cells. The T-cell division includes
cytotoxic T-cells, helper T-cells and suppressor T-cells. Cytotoxic T-cells are the direct attackers of your immune defense forces,
capable of killing almost any foreign invader. For this reason, they are frequently called killer cells. They kill by poisoning. The
neutrophils and macrophages destroy enemies by eating them. T-cells use special substances called lysosomol enzymes that they
manufacture themselves. One of them is hydrogen peroxide. They simply embrace the enemy, hold it close and inject the poison
directly into the body of the invader. When they kill an enemy with poison, rather than ingesting it, they can kill many organisms,
without harming themselves.
Each cell has responsibilities that it must fulfill in order to protect your body. It’s all teamwork. T-cells are especially lethal to cancer
cells. They also attack the cells of transplanted organs or any other cells that are “foreign” to the body. The immune defense forces have
an early warning system. They have outposts strategically located that intercept enemies before they are allowed to enter the body.
The lymphoid tissue is the equivalent of radar. For example, the tonsils intercept antigens that enter by way of the throat.
The adenoids catch aliens trying to sneak in through the nose. And the lymphoid tissue in your appendix and intestines guard against
antigen invaders that hide in food. Tonsils and adenoids used to be routinely removed, and many people have had their appendix or
spleen taken out. The lymphoid tissue of the spleen and bone marrow is able to decipher codes of the aliens that make it to the blood.
Lymphoid tissue is also located in lymph nodes throughout the body to identify a foreigner that might try to invade the tissue spaces.
Calcium and Cancer
Calcium maintains the organization of tissues. Coordination among the cells in a tissue is maintained mostly by bridges, known as
tight junctions that bind the cells together physically and allow messages to be carried among them. The messages are carried by
calcium atoms just like messages on a telephone line are carried by calcium atoms just like messages on a telephone line are carried
by electrons. Tight junctions—and communication between cells—disappear when calcium in the fluid around the cells drops. The
tissues become disorganized.
Competition among the cells for food and oxygen replaces the usual cooperation, and a process of rapid evolution at the cell level
begins. The result of this is that highly specialized, aggressive cells evolve that can command resources, invade other tissues, and kill
other cells. This is called cancer. Calcium is used in two ways in your body. The first is for communication.
The cells in your body talk constantly, using a special chemical code. They routinely communicate information necessary for you tissues
to function properly. Calcium is vital to that communication between cells. Cells exchange information through tiny bridges between
them, called calcium channels. Most calcium channels are located in structures called communicating junctions. Cells transmit various kinds of messages, and it is hypothesized that the most important of these is a decision with an adjacent cell on whether to divide.
A normal cell in tissue called epithelium—the cells that make up the inside layer of your intestine, your skin, and which line the ducts
of a woman’s breast— decides whether to divide from adjacent cells using a calcium channel. Mercury blocks the calcium channel
in cell membranes.
Your body can be seen as a giant cooperative venture with billions of cells working toward a common objective, your health. Many of
the most important tissues in your body have an outermost layer that is only one cell thick. This is true of the cells lining the intestine,
the cells in the lungs that exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide with the air we breathe, and the cells lining the inside of most of our
internal organs. In the case of the small intestine, for example, a single layer of cells is devoted to absorbing nutrients. Cells exchange
information or communicate by sending calcium ions from one cell to a neighboring cell via a communicating junction.
When contact between cells is cut off for some reason, we cells interpret this as the loss of a neighboring cell. The apparent loss of
nearby cells will stimulate the proliferation of cells that make new epithelium. Calcium carries a vital message between the cells
that keeps them from dividing unnecessarily. When calcium in the fluid bathing the cells is very low, the communication system is
disconnected. The cells can’t receive signals from adjacent cells. And they don’t have cell phones! If enough time passes without
receiving signals from other cells, the cells that make new epithelium will divide.
Critical Condition
203
If the two cells produced do not receive signals from other cells, they too will divide, producing eight cells, and so on. Before long,
there will be several generations of new cells, each generation doubling the size of the previous generation. If these cells do not continue to receive growth-blocking signals via calcium channels from adjacent cells, they will continue to proliferate in a chain reaction.
Soon this chaotic mitosis of cells will form a pileup, and take on peculiar shapes and sizes.
When the pileup is large, the condition is called hyperplasia. Hyperplasia may be physical evidence of the breakdown in communication among cells. In the intestine, it appears long before cancer is present. The usual scenario of a breakdown in communication
in the cells of the intestine may be for the cells to pile up until they form a polyp, which is an unusual extension of the lining of the
intestine into the lumen, or opening, where the food passes through. Polyps seen under a microscope reveal that many are disorganized
tissues. Most polyps don’t start out as cancer, but rather seem to be a result of the body’s attempt to deal with epithelial cells that are
needlessly dividing due to a deficiency of calcium in the fluid bathing them.
Signals sent through a communicating junction to an adjacent cell inform it that another cell is nearby. Signals such as these sent from
the surface of the cell are used by the cell nucleus, the specialized central command, to make a decision about the need to reproduce.
If the signals coming to the cell membrane are constant, adjacent cells are considered to be present. If the signal from one surface
of the cell stops coming in, it means that the adjacent cell is no longer present. Perhaps it had been washed away, as often happens
in tissues such as the intestine. Or the cell might have died, shrinking slightly and leaving space. Cancer manifests in three phases:
decoupling, initiation, and promotion. It is the first phase, decoupling, where calcium has the greatest effect.
Decoupling is the process of cells splitting apart from one another. It happens when the amount of calcium in the extracellular fluid
is low. It is due to loss of tight junctions that bind cells of the intestine, breast, and respiratory tissues together. When cell lose communication and begin to divide, the tissue becomes disorganized and the cells begin to pile up. The resulting mass of cells is called
hyperplasia. If the cells are unusual shapes or are especially disorganized, it is called dysplasia. It isn’t cancer, however—it often
disappears spontaneously without a trace. Decoupling lays the groundwork for hyperplasia, which precedes the next stage in the
formation of cancer, initiation.
Radiation or toxic chemicals can produce variation by attacking the DNA in the cells, causing mutations. Most of the mutated cells
will die but a few will thrive. Those that thrive are better able to get food and oxygen than normal cells, and therefore better able to
reproduce. If the generator of variation continues to act, more variation will occur. New mutations will arise in each generation of
transformed cells. Again, most will die but those that survive will do so because they have an advantage in getting food and oxygen.
These cells in turn will thrive and reproduce. Those that reproduce most rapidly are the most successful. If this process continues over
many generations, a generation of highly aggressive, rapidly reproducing, mutated cells will come into being.
These cells become potent competitors for food and oxygen at the expense of normal cells. In many cases they lose their fine structure
and even some of their genes. These are cancer cells. If the generator of variation is removed, the evolutionary process may be arrested
before a new generation of cancer cells evolves. This is what happens when a person quits smoking. The predominant carcinogen in
tobacco smoke is benzo-alpha-pyrene. Take it away and evolution of the cells toward cancer is usually arrested. If the cancer cells
have evolved sufficiently already, then taking away the generator of variation will do little good. The die has been cast. This is why
quitting smoking late in life doesn’t always prevent cancer. The third stage of cancer is proliferation of the highly evolved cancer cells.
A cancer can be promoted by a chemical that is not a cause of variation. There are many chemicals, such as the hormone estrogen,
that do not appear to initiate cancer cells, but which can stimulate them to grow. The rate of spread of breast cancer can be reduced
dramatically in many women by eliminating the promoter estrogen (hormone replacement therapy, birth control pills, meat, poultry).
Without the promoter, the cancer tissue slows its rate of reproduction.
Calcium seems to prevent cancer in the decoupling phase of the disease. Cells can function normally without communication with
other cells, at least for short periods of time. Eventually, though, in the absence of communication from other cells, the cells will
divide. On the other hand, if calcium levels remain normal, cells will not divide unnecessarily, and the evolution will be slowed. A
sufficient intake of calcium slows the evolution or normal cells toward cancer and can help to prevent it. The second major role of
calcium inn the body is to provide structure.
There are only a few elements in the world that are used routinely to provide structure for plants and animals. Almost all rigid structures of plants and animals contain calcium. Each cell in your body, with a few exceptions, has a skeleton, called a cytoskeleton
that keeps the cell together. These cell skeletons differ in degrees of rigidity, but in places where they must be very rigid they include
crystals of calcium. The reasons for this are that calcium is strong, easily dissolvable, and transportable. Osteoporosis occurs because
calcium is easily dissolvable and transportable. A sufficient calcium intake is crucial to health and fitness.
Mercury blocks the enzyme in the cell membrane that actively passes calcium in and out of the muscle cells by attaching to the
thiol part of the enzyme. Calcium is necessary for the proper function of heart muscle. High blood pressure is caused by mercury
preventing the passage of calcium into the heart muscle cells, increasing the force of the heart muscle contraction. It takes time for
chronic mercury exposure to cause enough damage to result in a clinically detectable dysfunction.
Critical Condition
204
This is a predominant characteristic of heart disease. Fluorine (fluoride) is the most reactive element known to chemists and its
greatest affinity is for calcium. Anyone with a calcium deficiency can experience muscle spasms and convulsions from fluoride ingestion. Fluorine interferes with the normal process of calcification of teeth during the process of their formation, so that affected
teeth, in addition to being unusually discolored and ugly in appearance, are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life. Fluoride
stimulates abnormal bone development. High dose fluoride treatment increases bone mass but the newly formed bone is structurally
unsound. Thus, instead of reducing hip fracture, high doses of fluoride increase hip fracture. People who drink a lot of alcohol tend to
absorb vitamin D and calcium from their diet poorly. The result for those who drink a lot of alcohol is bone loss, even in young people.
There are changes in the microscopic structure of the intestine of people who drink a lot of alcohol that make it hard for vitamin D to
pass through the fine structures of cells. The ultimate result is that the calcium is not absorbed, which causes an increase in the rate
of cell division of the intestinal wall. Some substances found in food act more as calcium transporters—gently carrying calcium molecules to the large intestine. Foremost of those transporters is pectin, a substance found in many fruits and vegetables, particularly in
apples. Pectin refers to both pectin and its relatives, the polysaccharides, in fruits and vegetables that aren’t derived from cellulose or
its relatives or starch. The Latin root word polysaccharide means “many sugars.”
These sugars are bound together so they can’t be absorbed by your body. Your body is able to absorb free sugars such as fructose (fruit
sugar), sucrose (table sugar), maltose (honey sugar), lactose (milk sugar), and glucose (a sugar found in carrots and other vegetables),
However, the body would need a special enzyme to break the polysaccharides into smaller free sugars, and our bodies don’t have the
enzyme to do it. But it doesn’t leave your body, either. It does something even more important. Pectin is a faithful carrier of calcium to
your large intestine. It does this with a molecular structure that looks and acts like an egg crate. It has a fascinating molecular structure
that consists of a long chain of up to a thousand units of a simple plant acid. If you add calcium to pectin, a gel forms.
One ounce of pectin gel contains 750 milligrams of calcium in its molecular egg crate. Because we don’t have an enzyme in our bodies
that will break down pectin in our stomach or small intestine, it passes through those organs intact to the large intestine. After traveling
through the small intestine, all that’s left of the apple is three compounds: cellulose, lignin, and pectin.
Cellulose and lignin are the compounds that make up the woody arts of the plant cell wall. They’re unusable by the body and pass
through untouched until they are eliminated. Pectin, however, is another matter. Pectin next enters the large intestine, where friendly
bacteria take it apart and use it as a source of fuel for themselves. They are able to do this because they have an enzyme we don’t.
Although bacteria eat it, it has no caloric value to us. When pectin is digested by friendly bacteria that live in the large intestine, it
releases calcium, where it can interact with potentially dangerous carcinogens, neutralizing to protect against intestinal cancer. The
calcium is also slowly absorbed by the intestine while some of it reacts with fatty acids, bile salts, and other carcinogens in the intestine
to form inert compounds called soaps.
Calcium safely binds up the attackers, rendering them unable to harm the intestinal cells. Apples, oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruits,
kiwi, and a wide range of other fruits, as well as most vegetables, contain substantial amounts of pectin.
The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals
Most of the cancer drugs come initially from the U.S. In the past, a company had to submit two favorable, large randomized trials to
obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. “Favorable” means that there must be a certain rate of tumor shrinkage lasting for
at least one month. It was not necessary to show that the treatment prolonged survival, and it was not necessary to submit the results
of any unfavorable trials for the same drug. These “strict scientific” guidelines were relaxed in the Clinton era, and drug companies
can get FDA approval on the basis of small preliminary trials, even if a large randomized trial may be unfavorable. In a remarkable
statement about drug approvals, an FDA spokesperson pointed out that any delay in approval did not mean unnecessary deaths
because “all these treatments for advanced cancer don’t cure people.”
Perhaps the situation is even worse than a case of just ineffective treatments. A group of respected researchers reviewed all the published statistical evidence on the outcome of medical treatments, and showed that the medical system is now the leading cause of
death and injury in the U.S. Deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 were 699,697; for cancer the figure was 553,251; while for
medical interventions it was 783,936 per year! Appropriately, the title of this study is Death by Medicine.
You may wonder why health authorities turn a blind eye to these massive fatalities, mostly caused by drugs, while concentrating their
energies instead on suppressing food supplements and natural remedies. A main reason for this distorted official attitude is the fact
that health departments and regulatory authorities are dominated by medical doctors who have been trained (with money from
drug companies) to believe that drugs are beneficial and natural remedies are potentially harmful. Despite a majority of Western
populations preferring natural remedies, basically all political parties promote dependency on pharmaceutical drugs.
Therefore, as a first step to changing this oppressive political climate, we urgently need a political party that promotes natural health
care rather than drug dependency.
Critical Condition
205
In an editorial by Richard Smith in the British Medical Journal he stated: “Only 15% of medical interventions are supported by
solid scientific evidence.” and “This is because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly
because many treatments have never been assessed at all.” Several decades ago, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was shown
in “rigorous scientific” research to be safe and effective; otherwise it would not have been approved. It was strongly promoted as protecting against heart disease and cancer. Now every new trial shows HRT to be dangerous and to increase the risk of developing
heart disease and cancer. What went wrong? Why was this not picked up earlier?
Quite simply, the original research was conducted with the aim of generating profits. Therefore, one should mistrust any research that
is conducted with profit in mind. Unfortunately, this presently applies to most medical research.
A Conspiracy of Silence
The eminent medical commentator and former editor of New Scientist, Dr. Donald Gould, in a timeless article called Cancer: A Conspiracy of Silence, wrote: “The commonest cancers are as resistant to treatment today as they were 40 or 50 years ago. Nothing is to
be gained by pretending that the battle against cancer is slowly but surely being won.” This truth has been deliberately concealed
from the general public. According to Gould, the reason for this conspiracy of silence is money. The public must continue to see the
Cancer Establishment as a winner to continue providing money.
One of the quoted scientists said that with tens of thousands of radiologists and millions of dollars in equipment, one just gives
radiation treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than good. Gould also is of the opinion that patients
who could be comfortable without medical treatment until their inevitable death, with medical treatment are made miserable
in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy weeks. But, of course, that is when most of the money is being made.
Gould feels that they poison their patients with drugs and radiation and mutilate them with unnecessary surgery in a desperate
attempt to treat the untreatable.
Not much has changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In a recent edition of The Moss Reports, we can read that long-term
survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung “has barely budged since the 1970s.” In summary, this
means that there has been no significant improvement in cancer survival rates in the last 70 to 80 years.
Alternative Treatment Suppression
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have conspired to destroy all nontoxic, alternative therapies, which they view as a threat to the medical establishment and the profits of the pharmaceutical companies,
which actually have larger turnovers than oil companies.
Over the past few decades, practitioners of alternative therapies have been ridiculed, bullied, taken to court and jailed. Any doctors
who practice such therapies have been threateded with the loss of their medical licences. Some inventors of alternative therapies have
even died in mysterious circumstances and their laboratories have been burned down, suggesting that they have been murdered by
people with a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Their only crime was curing patients using non-approved and non-toxic
alternative treatments.
The history of science contains many examples of dogma which later proved to be false. In the early 19th century, scientsist stated
that human beings could not travel at more than 30 mph because they would be unable to breathe. the had to retract their claim when
the first railway trains appeared. A hundred years ago, many scientists claimed that heavier-than-air machines could never fly. this
belief was so widespread that many periodicals refused to report the Wright Brothers first flight in 1903, as they assumed it must be a
hoax. According to the laws of aerodynamics bumble bees cannot fly–fortunately bumble bees don’t know this and fly quite happily.
In the same way, contemporary scientists claim that alternative therapies like dowsing and homeopathy must be ineffective as they
cannot be explained by our current science. This proves that our current science is defective.
No one saw the rings around Saturn until the telescope was invented. In the same way we will one day have an “expanded science”
which will verify many alternative therapies. Multimillion dollar scanners can detect tumors but there are therapists who can do it
with a one dollar pendulum! Galen (130-200 A.D.) was a famous doctor and favorite among the Roman rulers in the second century
after Christ. He dissected animals and from what he saw, surmised what the insides of human bodies might be.
For the next thirteen hundred years, the medical authorities taught their students the beliefs of Galen. Even during the early
part of modern times–it was nothing short of sacrilege to question Galen’s teachings in any way. Sound slightly familiar? Not until
the great anatomist Vesalius (1515-1564) of the University of Padua undertook detailed autopsies in 1538 did we finally “discover”
the magnitude of Galen’s errors and the extent of their basic ignorance. The tyranny of medical authority finally was glaringly, horrifyingly, and shamefully acknowledged.
Critical Condition
206
The greatest abomination of modern American medicine is the ineffective, harmful and murderous treatments used to “fight” cancer
while a variety of alternative healing methods, which actually do cure cancer, are kept illegal. All the while, 10,000 Americans die of
cancer weekly and orthodox medicine keeps them “contained” in the surgery-chemo-radiation death tunnel. Most Americans would
be utterly outraged if they knew the extent of scientific politics, corruption, cowardice, and outright participation by the “scientific
priesthood” in the criminal negligence (at minimum) which characterizes most of the learned scientific societies and publications
regarding the obvious, covered-up “scientific” frauds, perpetrated to maintain the lucrative, deadly cancer therapies rigidly kept in
place by orthodox medicine, orthodox health officials and others pigging-out from the cancer feeding trough.
North American biomedicine has never been friendly to the notion that patients should be given wide latitude to choose amongst
treatment modalities–not least because patients’ rights of this sort can only undercut the profession’s ability to shape and control its
own market. So it comes down to money, power, and markets. The doctors, the scientists, the “Health Officials” and others inside
the monopoly (or syndicate, cartel, conspiracy)–just like the Soviet empire’s old guard, in its dying days are primarily influenced by
what keeps them in the clover.
Millions of cancer patients can die as long as the “Health bosses” hang on to their power and elevated positions of authority. (The
chief chemotherapist at the Mayo Clinic even admitted in a published paper that he gave chemotherapy to cancer patients which he
knew would not help them, right up to their deaths in order to keep them from trying alternative therapies!) It’s time for them to go.
The vast majority of studies show that radiation cannot cure cancer, and that it can rarely extend life for people with the disease.
The disappointing truth was that, for more than 90% of cancer patients, chemotherapy had nothing to offer. Consider the people at the
National Cancer Institute who set research agendas and long-range chemotherapy–radiation policies for years into the future, despite
massive scientific evidence of its failure. They know what their crimes are and what they did to millions and millions of Americans
with cancer. They know. Sometimes they lie and pretend otherwise. But they want that yearly $2¼ billion for “research.”
Never has such a “profession” in the history of America so badly and shamefully committed such foul deeds and sought to continue
such a human slaughter through lies. With alarming regularity, oncologists say that they would not allow chemotherapy to be given
either to themselves or to their families. Oncologists characteristically downplay the level of suffering involved when they recommend chemotherapy to people with cancer.
A majority of the cancer doctors in several investigations admitted that they wouldn’t allow chemotherapy to be used on them,
yet they cleverly induced their patients to take chemotherapy by careful, tricky word stratagems, in effect, misleading the innocent.
Only rarely are patients given accurate and complete information in an understandable fashion so that they can make truly informed
decisions. The real goal is no longer to discover a cure for cancer but to perpetuate a professional way of life. Meanwhile, 10,000
American cancer patients per week die while the New England Journal of Medicine, the National Cancer Institute, the American
Cancer Society and the Office of Alternative Medicine ignore the documented cures for cancer. Belief that late 20th century medicine
is oriented toward scientific goals is mere self-delusion.
The American public should finally come to realize that medicine consumes over 11% of the U.S. gross national product every
year. The American medical industry is a $550 billion a year industry... There are more people living off of cancer than there are
people dying from cancer. There is no evidence for beneficial effects of chemotherapy on survival. Chemotherapy can’t extend the
life of cancer patients with the most common organic cancers. A great deal of standard treatment of cancer has not been shown to be
of benefit... but insurance pays it for.
A lying priesthood deluded by brainwashing would be a polite way to describe the cancer doctors along with the so-called “scientists”
and big league media who share the guilt. Inside the cancer world they knew, and yet, they kept murdering! No one in government, the media, orthodox medicine or those near the top of the scientific game had the courage or simple responsibility to scream
STOP! And the radiologists just keep on radiating. What else can be expected? It’s all they know how to do. But it doesn’t work. A
common source of information for many people diagnosed with cancer is the Oncoline internet site, which receives more than 1 million “hits” per month. The disinformation and deceit provided to cancer patients by Oncolink, is prepared primarily by the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), and constitutes one of the great crimes of our times. These boards
work primarily to protect the practitioners and have little or nothing to do with protecting the public.
The most effective way of inhibiting innovation in licensed professions is through disciplinary provisions. In the early 1990’s, the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) was established by the U.S. Congress to investigate “alternative medical treatments,” especially
for cancer. It was quickly taken over by the establishment medicine “experts” who perceived OAM as a huge threat to their expertise,
grants, beliefs, careers, and “established way of doing things.” The patients who might have benefited from a truly independent,
“alternative medicine” approach to cancer were ignored. The scientific literature often is simply ignored by orthodox medicine.
Despicable medical politics have resulted in torture and death for countless cancer patients across America and across years and years
as real, working cures for cancer remained suppressed, unavailable, and “unproven.”
Critical Condition
207
Established methods–surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy–actually weaken the patient’s natural powers of resistance, making
long-term recovery more difficult and less likely. Alternatives to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation are either specifically against
the laws, or so repressed by state powers that dispensing them would be professional suicide for doctors. The very existence of these
laws is testimony to their true purpose–protection of the treatment fraud. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National
Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the large cancer treatment centers work to eliminate your choice of
cancer therapies, particularly better ones. Serious study of how these entities work together to destroy hopeful approaches to cancer
reveals a trail of corruption, conspiracy, dishonesty, and inhumanity that warrants the designation of evil.
In Europe between 1450 and 1750, the Inquisition tortured and then inevitably murdered 5 million to 6 million people. This exceeded
the number killed in all the wars of those three hundred years. This was the approved, sanctioned system of the ruling, elite class of
nobles and priests. It exemplifies how, from within a privileged ruling order, an utterly criminal, inhuman, rationalized madness can
prevail and be essentially oblivious to the privileged. While those who are powerless, are subjected to physical and mental violations
and outrages, for the sake of preserving the power and beliefs of a dominant class of professionals. Today in America, the priests and
mouthpieces of establishment cancer medicine perform rituals, which tragically mirror the Inquisition’s three hundred year historical
record of atrocities and still lingering nightmarish effect on the collective psyche. The war against alternative medicine continues.
As Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and one of the architects of the Constitution in 1787
prophetically stated:
“Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others... are fragments of monarchy and
have no place in a republic. The constitution of this Republic should make special provisions for Medical Freedom as well as
Religious Freedom.”
Meanwhile, the “Federation of State Medical Boards” met in Chicago in early 1996 and agreed to coordinate a national network
to punish doctors and others who used alternative methods. These medical boards have chosen consciously to enter into a
conspiracy with state attorneys general, insurance commissioners, hospitals, county medical societies, and anyone else who will
naively buy into their agenda. There will be an accounting. History requires it, for the sake of all those who died in the torture
chambers of the American Cancer Establishment.
Critical Condition
208